Sermon and Worship Resources

Matthew 21:28-32 · The Parable of the Two Sons

28 "What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

29 " 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30 "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

31 "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. 32 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

It's Your Funeral

Matthew 21:28-32

Sermon
by Roger G. Talbott

Today people in our society are less and less willing to completely leave things to the "experts." Patients insist that their doctors talk to them about the options for treatment and include the patient as a full partner in making the final decision. The computer software stores are full of programs that allow people to draft simple legal documents like wills and to keep financial records and fill out tax forms like an accountant. People are saying to doctors, "It's my body." They are saying to lawyers and accountants, "It's my business and my future." They are saying to auto mechanics, "It's my car." Couples who want to get married say to me, "It's our wedding." Very few people say, "It's my funeral." Why am I talking about all of this today? So that I can give you a piece of advice and preach a short sermon.

First, the advice. It's nothing you haven't heard before. Do your next-of-kin a favor and write down your wishes for your funeral service. Don't, whatever you do, tell them not to have a funeral. I'm sorry to inform you of this; it may be your funeral but your funeral is not for you; it's for the people who love you. If they think they don't need some formal way to say good-bye, then let them decide that. Otherwise, at least give them the option of spending half an hour worshiping God while surrounded by the people who love them.

However, in planning that funeral, it would probably help them to worship and to be healed if they knew your favorite hymns and your favorite Bible passages. You might even write something to be read to your loved ones at the funeral. Some people even make audiotape or videotape messages.

That's my advice. Now here is the sermon. This sermon revolves around planning a funeral for someone else.

When I sit down with a family to plan a funeral for someone who has died, I may ask if they have any particular passages from the Bible that they want included in the service. If it is to be held in the church, I may ask about hymns they would like played or sung. The most difficult task, however, is determining what to say about the person who has died. No one pretends that we can adequately sum up a person's life in five or ten minutes. However, it is helpful to understand the purpose of the words at a funeral. Some funeral services divide what we usually call the "sermon" into three parts: the Naming, the Witness, and the Sermon. The Naming usually includes the kind of information you might put on a resume or into a biography: when and where the deceased was born; the name of his or her spouse and the names of any children; jobs that person held and places the person called "home"; the person's hobbies and membership in organizations; and maybe a word about the circumstances of his or her death. The Witness is more personal. We may speak of the deceased's courage or love or sense of humor or friendship or sense of responsibility or contributions to the community. In the sermon, we would speak about the promise of eternal life and the promise that those who mourn shall be comforted. These three sections can be divided among three speakers; perhaps a partner or a coworker could do the "naming" -- talk about the public life of the deceased; a close friend or family member could bear witness to the private life; and the family's pastor could preach a sermon. I usually offer families this option. In practice, however, even people who are accustomed to public speaking find it difficult to speak when their grief is fresh and sharp. I often read the speech someone else has written but cannot find the voice to say. Usually the family just asks me to say something so I weave the naming, witness and sermon into one.

How do we "name" someone -- tell who that person is -- in a way that is both honest and personal? And how do we witness to the grace of God in someone's life -- again, in an honest way?

The words that are spoken at a Christian funeral, whether we call them a sermon, a naming, or a witness cannot be characterized as a eulogy. A eulogy praises a person who has died. In Christian worship, we praise God, not people. That does not keep us from saying good things about the deceased. It does mean that we see the grace of God in a person's life and it is the business of a funeral sermon to point out that grace.

I think it is important to say that, because a lot of people hate eulogies at funerals, and rightly so. Not many of them are honest. In fact, one of my nightmares is to miss the mark as widely as the poor preacher did at a funeral for a relative of a friend of mine. She said the minister went on about what a cheerful man cousin Dan was -- how he always had a smile on his face. Most of those assembled must have wondered about whom he was talking. After all, my friend said, she learned the meaning of the word "curmudgeon" when she looked it up in the dictionary and saw a picture of Dan's face.

How do we witness to the grace of God honestly and without judgment at a funeral? By remembering that at every funeral we are probably burying one or the other of the two sons in this parable.

Some people apparently said "no" to their heavenly Father all of their lives. They certainly said "no" to the church. They never went. Some of them were even contemptuous of what they called "organized religion." (Which only shows how little they ever knew about it. If you ever find an organized religion, please let me know, I'd like to join.) Some even said "no" to Jesus Christ. There are some preachers who say that such people don't deserve a Christian burial. My feeling is that whether a burial is Christian or not Christian depends more on the people who are doing the burying than on the person being buried.

That is precisely the position you may find yourself in someday. You may have to bury someone close to you who has been a proud pagan. What do you do?

In some cases, Paul can help us out: "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Romans 2:13).

In other words, there are many who have not professed the Christian faith who practiced it. They are like the son who said to his father that he wouldn't go to work in the vineyard and then went anyway.

There are, of course, those who not only didn't profess the Christian faith, but who did not live exemplary lives either. Some people make rather spectacular failures of their lives. Yet, there is always something that one can say about the grace of God in a person's life. Indeed, if you look hard enough, the spectacular failures have sometimes done some spectacularly good things. I think, for example, of a story told me by an old retired minister when I was preparing for the ministry.

He graduated from seminary just before World War I and he was appointed to a church in a very small town. He had been there only a couple of weeks when he received the call every new minister dreads -- the call to do his first funeral. The person who had died was not a member of his church. She was, in fact, a woman with a very bad reputation. Her husband was a railroad engineer who was away from home much of the time. She had rented rooms in their house to men who worked on the railroad and rumor had it that she rented more than just rooms when her husband was away. The young preacher, faced with his first funeral, found no one who had a good word to say about this woman, until he entered the small old-fashioned grocery store on the day before the funeral. He began to talk to the store owner about his sadness that the first person he would bury would be someone about which nothing good could be said. The store owner didn't reply at first and then, in his silence, he appeared to make a decision. He took out his store ledger and laid it on the counter between him and the preacher. He opened the ledger at random and, covering the names in the left-hand column, he pointed to grocery bills written in red -- groceries that people had bought on credit -- and then the column that showed the bill had been paid.

He said, "Every month, that woman would come in and ask me who was behind in their grocery bills. It was usually some family who had sickness or death -- or some poor woman trying to feed her kids when her husband drank up the money. She would pay their bill and she made me swear never to tell. But, I figure now that she is dead, people ought to know -- especially those who benefited from her charity who have been most critical of her."

"Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you."

If you look hard enough, you can find good in just about anyone. I say "just about" because I'll leave open the possibility that someone's life may be completely devoid of good, but I haven't found that person yet.

I have come close on occasion. The saddest cases are those who haven't been great sinners or saints -- but whose lives were just mediocre. I sometimes think about how, in the book of Revelation, the Spirit of Christ condemns the church in Laodicea because they "are neither cold nor hot." Lukewarmness -- mediocrity -- makes Jesus gag (Revelation 3:14-16).

Yet even these people always have good intentions. I remember one of the first funerals I did. I tried to follow the old preacher's example and find something good about the woman who had died. I asked nearly everyone. No one, including her own son, had anything good to say about her. They didn't have anything bad to say, either. It was just as if she had not lived. To some extent this is the fault of the people closest to the person who has died. They just haven't paid attention. I am well aware that more than half the stories I hear from people before a funeral are more about the person telling the story than they are about the deceased.

I sat in the woman's living room talking to her son, and noticed a poem in a frame on the wall. It was a familiar poem about wanting to live in a house on the side of the road and to be a friend to the human race. I asked the son about the poem and he said it was his mother's favorite. That was what she had wanted to do with her life. As I heard the cars whizzing past on the highway outside the front door, I knew that she had chosen to fulfill at least part of that ideal -- she did, indeed, live in a house on the side of the road.

So, in that funeral sermon, I talked not so much about who the woman was as about what she wanted to be.

Is that such faint praise that it damns the person just as effectively as saying, "Here was a totally wasted life"? Isn't saying that "so-and-so wanted to be a better person than he or she was but didn't have the moral courage to live it," just saying that this person is like the son in the parable who said he would go to work in the vineyard and didn't?

Yes, it is.

Well, isn't this parable a condemnation of people like that? Doesn't Jesus ask us, "Who did the father's will? The son who said he wouldn't work and then did it anyway or the son who said he would and didn't?" And isn't the answer obvious?

Yes, the son who said he wouldn't work and did it anyway did the father's will and the one who said he would go and didn't did not do the father's will, but to say this parable condemns that second son is reading too much into it.

In the first place, note that this parable is about two sons. Jesus only tells two parables about a father who has two sons. The other is the parable of the prodigal son. He tells several parables about a vineyard. We heard one last week about the workers who were all paid the same regardless of how long they worked. The very next passage is another parable about servants in a vineyard. This, however, is not a parable about workers or servants, but about a parent and his children.

If you hired someone to do a certain job and he said he would do it and didn't, you probably would fire him. If you told your son or daughter to do something and he or she agreed but didn't do it, you would not fire your own child. You can't.

Notice, Jesus doesn't say what happened to the two sons. If he had wanted to condemn the second son, Jesus might have concluded with him being tortured, like the unforgiving servant. The parable just ends. It is left to us to imagine what the father did with these two sons.

That, my friends, is exactly the position we are in at a funeral. We know two things when someone dies. The first is: This is a child of God. The second is: All of God's children are loved equally well. There is one big thing that we do not know. We don't know what the Heavenly Parent does with a child who has disobeyed God's will. Nor do we know what the Heavenly Parent does with a child who has insulted God.

If we heard this parable with Middle Eastern ears, we would be shocked and scandalized by the first son's outright refusal to obey his father. This is not a typical American household where it is common for a father to say to his son, "Hey, Kid! You goin' to take out the garbage like your mother askt 'cha or what?"

And the son, watching MTV, shouts back, "Hey! get off my back! I'm busy, okay?"

If that scene is familiar you may want to write down the reference for this passage: If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

The point is, sons did not tell their fathers that they weren't going to work in the fields. The father would be disgraced by such behavior. The first son is not blameless in this story.

Neither son is blameless in this story. That is the way it is in our relationship to God. That is true even when we look at the lives of great saints. Everyone has feet of clay. Martin Luther was a man who needed enemies like other men need friends. John Wesley was an utter failure as a husband.

Almost always, when I do a funeral for a man or woman who has been a pillar of the church, I can see people in the congregation who have ambivalent feelings at this person's passing. Often, they are sitting in the front row. It can sometimes be a terrible burden to be married to or to be the child of a very good man or woman. Sometimes their greatest virtues can be the biggest burden we can bear.

A friend of mine told me of the recent passing of his grandmother at the age of 96. The little church where she had worshipped for most of her very long life was full of people. Maybe a third of them were family. The rest were people who had known her as their Sunday school teacher, their neighbor, their friend. They knew her as the woman who ran the rummage sales and who counted the offering every Sunday. She was always there at that little church, just as she had always been there for her children and her grandchildren.

My friend said that when he visited her in the nursing home, she had been telling one of her nurses about some of her 20 great-grandchildren. The nurse wondered how she could remember all their names. His grandmother said, "Because I pray for them every day."

My friend, who is a minister, did not preach the sermon at that funeral. That was the job of his grandmother's pastor, who also was his parents' pastor. He did say the prayer of thanksgiving at the end. He prayed about how much his grandmother had loved all of her family and friends and then briefly acknowledged that that love sometimes held on too tightly. In that moment, he said something that needed to be said. His grandmother's children and grandchildren had sometimes felt that they couldn't pursue some of their dreams because to do so would have meant leaving this loving person behind and they didn't want to hurt her.

It's all right to tell the truth at a funeral, as long as we tell it gently. No one is perfect. Indeed, we are all far from being perfect. We all live contradictory lives. Some folks seem cold and selfish on the outside, and hide their great passion and love in such a way that it only emerges in secrecy or in their dreams. Others of us make public professions of faith and try to build reputations as people who are faithful to God, but we fail to live up to our ideals in some very important areas of our lives.

Yet, we are all children of God. Someday, someone you know very well will die. I hope that whoever is in charge of the service will ask your help in preparing it and will ask you specifically what you would like said about this person. You can be loving and you can be honest at the same time. You can find the good in the worst life. You can find high aspirations in the most wasted life. You can admit the faults of the most exemplary life and celebrate the grace of God in every life, because we are all children of God. Those who outwardly reject God and secretly obey, as well as those who profess faith in God and desire to please God and fail to live by that faith or to do God's will, are all children of God. It is not for us to judge. It is for us to look at those lives, love them, learn from them and then live our own lives by God's grace as well, knowing that God accepts us, just as we are. Amen.

CSS Publishing Company, GOOD NEWS FOR THE HARD OF HEARING, by Roger G. Talbott

Overview and Insights · The Parable of the Two Sons (21:28–32)

Now Jesus tells three parables that answer the leaders’ previous question (21:23) and reveal more about how people can respond to Jesus. In the first story, a father instructs his t…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Matthew 21:28-32 · The Parable of the Two Sons

28 "What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

29 " 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30 "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

Commentary · Parables of Responsibility

Jesus first addresses the Jerusalem leaders with three parables that indict them for abdicating their leadership role in guiding Israel in righteousness (21:32). In the parable of the two sons (21:28–32), Jesus contrasts the son who, though initially disobedient, repents (the Greek term is rendered variously as “changed his mind” and “repent” in 21:29 and 32) and obeys his father with the son who says he will obey but does not. In regard to believing John the Baptist’s message, the tax collectors and prostitutes are like the first son, the chief priests and elders like the second (21:31–32). According to Jesus, the wayward of Israel enter God’s kingdom ahead of its leaders, because the latter “did not repent and believe [John]” (21:32).

This harsh indictment leads into a parable of judgment on the same leaders (21:33–46). Jesus draws on the Old Testament portrayal of Israel as a vineyard (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7) and tells a story of a vineyard entrusted by a landowner to local tenants. When he sends his servants to collect the fruit, the tenants beat or kill them. Even when he sends his son, they do the same. The judgment on the tenants is the vineyard’s removal from them and its transfer to other tenants (21:41). Jesus cites Psalm 118:22–23 to indicate God’s vindication of the rejected one (cf. 28:18) and declares that God’s kingdom will be taken away from Israel’s current leaders and given “to a people who will produce its fruit” (21:43; with the singular noun “a people” likely referring to faithful Jews and Gentiles). The judgment of this parable and the previous one is aimed specifically at the Jewish leaders, who have failed to lead and care for the Jewish people as they ought. Their failure is seen precisely in their rejection of both John and Jesus (the son of the parable). The chief priests and Pharisees know that Jesus has referred to them in these two parables (21:45), so they seek to arrest him secretly (21:46).

The third parable Matthew includes (22:1–14) is likely also intended for the Jewish leadership, though the ending is not specific to them as at 21:31–32, 45. God’s kingdom is likened to a wedding banquet held by a king for his son. Those invited refuse to come, even killing the king’s servants who bring the invitation. In response, the king sends his army to destroy these murderers and burn their city (with a possible reference to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70; see “Author, Date, and Audience” in the introduction). Since the original guests refuse the king’s invitation, he opens the banquet to anyone his servants can find, “the bad as well as the good” (22:10; cf. 13:40–43, 49–50). Jesus’s parable up to this point emphasizes the affront of refusing God’s kingdom invitation and the judgment that will fall on those who reject that invitation, as the Jewish leadership has been doing. The final scene of the parable strikes closer to home. A man who is at the banquet is discovered without the proper wedding garments and thrown out. This scene warns those who have responded to the kingdom invitation (offered by Jesus) of judgment if they do not bear fruit (with “weeping and gnashing of teeth” being a common image for judgment in Matthew; cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30). Though the wedding garment is an ambiguous image, in context it seems best interpreted along an ethical line, since both good and bad enter the parable’s banquet (22:10) and since the previous two parables emphasize ethical behavior (21:32, 43; for similar warnings to insiders, cf. 7:21–23; 16:27).

The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Big Idea: When his authority is questioned by the Jerusalem leaders, Jesus, the faithful Son of God, tells three parables contrasting those who are faithful and do God’s will (even supposed sinners) and those who disbelieve and disobey (the Jerusalem leaders).

Understanding the Text

Two symbolic actions of Jesus—his entry as king into Jerusalem and his temple critique (21:1–22)—provoke a contest of authority with the chief priests and Jewish elders (21:23–27). Jesus refuses to answer their question about the source of his authority directly; instead, he tells three parables that provide an implicit claim of his messianic identity and implicate the Jewish leaders in their rejection of his identity and authority (21:28–22:14). In their rejection, Jesus contrasts them to those who have believed his message (and John’s): tax collectors and prostitutes (21:31–32; cf. 9:9–13) and people who produce fruit (21:43; cf. 3:8; 7:15–20; 12:33). It is at this point in Matthew’s story that the Jerusalem leaders begin the final plot to arrest and execute Jesus (21:46; see 26:3–4).

Interpretive Insights

21:23 By what authority are you doing these things? The challenge issued by the chief priests and elders sets the stage for the rest of chapters 21–22. The question of authority is at the heart of the conflict between Jesus and various groups of Jewish leaders that challenge him. But Jesus will confound them and evade their “traps” (22:15, 23, 34). His wisdom amazes those listening (22:22, 33), and his final riddle silences their interrogations (22:46). We can outline this as follows:

A. Jesus’ authority is challenged by chief priests and elders (21:23–27).

B. Jesus tells three parables to challenge the Jewish leaders: they will miss out on the kingdom because they reject him (21:28–22:14).

C. Pharisees and Herodians test Jesus on the imperial tax (22:15–22).

D. Sadducees test Jesus on resurrection (22:23–33).

E. Pharisees test Jesus on Torah (22:34–40).

F. Jesus confounds the Jewish leaders with a riddle (22:41–46).

21:25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Wisely, Jesus counters with a question not directly about his own authority (21:23) but about the origin (i.e., authority) of John’s baptism. Jesus is asking if the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem recognized that John’s baptizing ministry was authorized by God. By focusing his question on John, Jesus situates the contest between the crowds and the leaders, since the crowds honor the martyred John as a prophet (21:26).

21:26 we are afraid of the people. The chief priests and elders betray a fear of the crowds that causes them to back down from their confrontation with Jesus. Inappropriate fear has been shown to be a trait of other leaders in Matthew. Parallel to 21:26, Herod fears the people’s reaction (if he kills John) because they consider John to be a prophet (14:5). And after Jesus tells a parable indicting the Jewish leadership for neglecting care for Israel, the chief priests and Pharisees want to arrest him, but their fear of the crowds (who hold Jesus to be a prophet) keeps them from doing this immediately (21:46).

21:28 There was a man who had two sons. The parable of the two sons highlights the importance of responding to Jesus in covenant loyalty by juxtaposing a son who obeys his father after saying he will not and a son who does not obey in spite of saying he will. Jesus makes the correspondences clear (21:31–32): the Jewish leaders are like the son who, in the end, does not obey, and tax collectors and prostitutes are like the obedient son. It is the latter’s proper response of repentance and faith to John’s call to righteousness that constitutes and produces their obedience.

21:31 The first. The parable’s thrust is about the importance of action, although not necessarily in contrast to words—as if the point were that the promise made is unimportant (cf. 5:33–37; 12:36–37). Some Greek manuscripts, instead of reading “the first” here, have the word eschatos (“the last”; or deuteros [“the second”]). This reading makes little sense for the parable’s purpose and also contravenes Matthew’s strong emphasis on doing God’s will (in this section, see 21:43; 22:11–12).

tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. The affront of Jesus’ parable is that those who are scorned and despised for their moral compromise will enter the kingdom “ahead of” (i.e., instead of [see 23:13]) those considered Israel’s leaders.

21:33 There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. Any Jewish reader from Matthew’s world would recognize the parable’s allusion to Israel. In Isaiah 5:1–7 Israel is compared to a vineyard belonging to Yahweh that does not produce good fruit. In Jesus’ parable the Jewish leaders correspond to the tenants who mistreat the landowner’s servants and son. This connection becomes clear at the end of the parable (21:45).

21:37–39 Last of all, he sent his son to them . . . they . . . killed him. The referent for the landowner’s son is Jesus himself, who will also be the “son” referent in the subsequent parable of the wedding banquet (22:1–14) as well as in the climactic riddle that Jesus tells (22:41–42).

21:42 The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. Jesus draws on Psalm 118 to explain the rejection that he experiences from the temple authorities. Implicitly, Jesus compares himself to the temple cornerstone, placing himself at the center of Jewish eschatological hopes (21:44).

21:43 the kingdom of God will be . . . given to a people who will produce its fruit. Although there is some debate about whether this judgment by Jesus indicts all of Israel, the focus of the parable (on tenants who mismanage the vineyard [21:41]) and the response of the leaders who hear the parable (“they knew he was talking about them” [21:45]) argue for a narrower referent. The kingdom will be given to a “people” (ethnos) who will produce fruit, in contrast to the Jewish leaders. The fact that ethnos is used here does not necessarily refer to Gentiles rather than Jews, since ethnos can denote a people (or nation) “united by kinship, culture, and common traditions” (BDAG 276).

21:46 They looked for a way to arrest him. Jesus has been perceived as a threat from the time of his Galilean ministry (12:14), and now the Jerusalem leaders seek a way to arrest Jesus (also 26:3–5). Presumably, they are looking for particular evidence to level a charge against him. In the end, they will accuse him of blasphemy (26:65) and bring him to Pilate as a royal pretender (27:11).

22:2 a king who prepared a wedding banquet. This parable compares the kingdom to a banquet, with invitations offered but rejected by expected guests (22:5). Given that the previous two parables have focused on the Jerusalem leaders’ rejection of Jesus, the reader will be anticipating that this third (final) parable will also indict them. Although this parable seems more general, there are clues that it too addresses the leaders: (1) they are Jesus’ audience as he tells the parable; (2) the extreme action of the first to be invited (they mistreat and kill those sent with the invitation) fits the previous parable’s indictment of the Jewish leaders (21:35–39); and (3) the reference to the burning of “their city” (22:7) may evoke for Matthew’s audience Jesus’ prophetic action of judgment on the temple and so its leaders (21:12–17; 24:1–35).

22:3 invited to the banquet . . . but they refused to come. The center of the parable is the invitation that goes out to expected, and then unexpected, guests. In the story the rejection of the invitation escalates quickly from ignoring it (22:5) to killing the slaves who bring it (22:6). This rather odd detail encourages the reader to move outside the parable and identify this action with the extreme action of the tenants in the previous parable (21:35–39). It is rejection of God’s invitation through Jesus that is the central thrust of this parable.

22:7 The king . . . sent his army . . . and burned their city. Some have understood this part of the parable to refer to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, likely a past event for Matthew’s audience (see the section “Date and Provenance” in the introduction).

22:10 the servants . . . gathered . . . the bad as well as the good. This detail of the parable prepares for the presence in the next verse of a man who lacks the proper wedding clothes—that is, good deeds.

22:11 he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. The referent of “wedding clothes” (not included in Luke’s version [Luke 14:15–24]) has been variously identified. Given Matthew’s emphasis on doing God’s will (e.g., 7:16–23; 12:33–37, 48–50) and the preceding reference to people producing fruit who will inherit the kingdom (21:43), it is likely that the wedding clothes represent obedience or covenant faithfulness (see 25:1–46, where the way for Jesus’ followers to prepare for final judgment is by pursuing acts of justice and mercy).

22:14 For many are invited, but few are chosen. This concluding aphorism derives its meaning from the parable. The many who are invited are portrayed as expected and unexpected, good and bad (22:10), so the “many” represent the scope of the invitation’s audience. The few who are chosen are those who are not necessarily expected in the kingdom but who are prepared for the coming kingdom by their covenant faithfulness. This “chosen few,” surprisingly in Matthew’s story, does not include the esteemed Jerusalem leaders, whom Jesus’ audience would have expected to be first in line for the kingdom (cf. 21:31, 43).

Teaching the Text

1. These three kingdom parables indicate that covenant faithfulness, not rank or status, is central to kingdom participation. While the Jewish leaders, specifically in this passage the chief priests, Jewish elders, and Pharisees (21:23, 45), could be expected to be first in line for the kingdom, given their status as Israel’s spiritual leaders, Jesus’ parables illustrate that these leaders will not enter the kingdom without repentance and faith (21:32). In fact, Jesus commends those who were considered least worthy or likely to make it into the kingdom: tax collectors and prostitutes (21:31). The parable of the wedding banquet illustrates the wide-open nature of the kingdom invitation (“invite to the banquet anyone you can find” [22:9]). Preaching and teaching this message of invitation for all persons is relatively easy, but we need to back up our words with actions. We can speak of God’s wide-open invitation, but people will judge our message by our actions of inclusion or exclusion. Are we ready and willing to open our doors and hearts to the most unlikely and, seemingly, most unworthy of candidates? Are we ready to see covenant faithfulness in the repentance and faith of those who do not fit our community profile?

2. Jesus as the faithful Son of God in the final two parables is the fulcrum of people’s response: covenant faithfulness centers on their response to him. Whereas Jesus’ interpretation of the first parable (the parable of the two sons) identifies people’s response to John’s message as repenting and believing, the final two parables indicate that the center point of proper response is to Jesus himself (21:37; 22:2). Covenant loyalty—bearing fruit (21:43; 22:11)—is framed in terms of proper response to Jesus and his teachings (see 7:24–27; 28:20). The Jewish leaders fail in their task of leading the people because they reject Jesus as the Messiah and refuse his message. They prove themselves unfaithful to lead Israel and will not receive the kingdom (21:43). But all who respond to Jesus in repentance, trust, and covenant loyalty will be welcomed into God’s kingdom.

So does our preaching center on Jesus and his teachings? Does it illuminate who Jesus is, so that people have a clearer picture of him after hearing what we have to say? It is easy to preach about all sorts of things besides Jesus—life lessons, how-to sermons, and the like. These topics have their place, but the text of Matthew compels us to preach Jesus and provides us with all sorts of ways to do so. Jesus the Messiah should be the centerpiece of what people hear from us, as he was for Matthew. And we can offer the invitation to respond to Jesus, inviting people to turn to him in faith and faithfulness, worship, and allegiance.

Illustrating the Text

These three kingdom parables indicate that covenant faithfulness, not rank or status, is central to kingdom participation.

Cultural Experience: If these parables indicate God’s wide-open invitation to people and the importance of inclusion of those outside our community profile in the welcome of the church, then a look at cultural propensities to limit our welcoming reach and put up dividing walls could be helpful. Professor and researcher Setha Low, in her social analysis of the increasingly popular gated communities, has this to say based on interviews conducted with this population:

Whether it is Mexicans, black salesmen, workers, or “ethnic changes,” the message is the same: residents are using the walls, entry gates, and guards in an effort to keep perceived dangers outside of their homes, neighborhoods, and social world. Contact incites fear and concern, and in response they are moving to exclusive, private, residential developments where they can keep other people out with guards and gates. The walls are making visible the systems of exclusion that are already there; now the walls are constructed in concrete.1

Jesus as the faithful Son of God in the final two parables is the fulcrum of people’s response: covenant faithfulness centers on their response to him.

Children’s Games: Juxtaposing two childhood games might illuminate the importance of focusing people’s attention on Jesus as the center of human response. A “treasure hunt” consists of following various cluesto locate a prize at the end of the game. Players begin with a single clue that leads them to the next clue and to the next, with the final clue leading to the treasure. This kind of game has a transactional quality to it. The person who finds all the clues first wins the prize. The game “follow the leader” is quite different. In it, the leader is the focus throughout. There is no mapping of clues to get to a prize; instead, to be successful, the players must keep their focus on the leader and do what that person does. This game has a more relational quality to it and provides a better illustration of what Matthew calls his readers to do in relation to Jesus. Discipleship for Matthew is about people’s responses to Jesus the Messiah and his direction and teachings.

Quote: John Stott, in Authentic Christianity, points to Jesus as the centerpiece of our corporate life and witness.

The words “witness” and “testimony” have been much devalued, and are sometimes employed to describe what is little more than an essay in religious autobiography. But Christian witness is witness to Christ. And the Christ to whom we have a responsibility to witness is not merely the Christ of our personal experience, but the historic Christ, the Christ of apostolic testimony. There is no other Christ.2

Teaching the Text by Jeannine K. Brown, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Father

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).

Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

John

A common name in first-century Judaism. The Greek name Iōannēs comes from the Hebrew name “Yohanan.” (1) The Baptist or Baptizer, he was the son of the priest Zechariah and Elizabeth. (See John the Baptist.) (2) The son of Zebedee, he was an apostle originally belonging to the inner circle of the twelve main disciples of Jesus. (See John the Apostle.) (3) John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10) and the son of Mary (Acts 12:12). (See Mark, John.) (4) The elder. Both 2 John and 3 John claim authorship by “the elder” (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Traditionally, all three Johannine Letters, the Gospel of John, and sometimes the Revelation of John have been attributed to John the apostle. However, modern scholarship often attributes 2 John and 3 John, and sometimes 1 John, to “the elder”—John the elder. (5) The seer, the author of the book of Revelation (see 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). Some scholars ascribe the authorship of Revelation to John the apostle, in line with the view of the church father Irenaeus. Other scholars ascribe the writing of Revelation to a certain John the elder. The book of Revelation does not further identify the author. However, the author is among the prophets, a seer, and his name is “John”—hence, John the seer.

Kingdom

A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2 Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world.

A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan. 3).

God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14 20). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1 Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1 Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2 Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).

Kingdom of God

The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While the theme is most fully developed in the NT, its origin is the OT, where the emphasis falls on God’s kingship. God is king of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1 4; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reign as king are references to a day when God will become king over his people (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). This emphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism and takes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and its anticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, which abandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the age will the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom is further developed throughout the NT.

Repent

The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit in this is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a complete turnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning from idols—anything that wrests away the affection that we owe God—to God (1 Sam. 7:3; 2 Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6; 1 Thess. 1:9; James 4:8 10).

Righteousness

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation.

Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this.

Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5 7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

Direct Matches

Prostitution

The rendering of sexual services for payment. The biblical references to prostitution are perhaps best organized under three headings: common or secular prostitution, cultic or sacred prostitution, and prostitution as metaphor.

Common or Secular Prostitution

This type of prostitution is referred to in the OT by the Hebrew word zonah and its derivatives (though some argue that on occasion the word might refer to sexual infidelity in general) and in the NT by the Greek term pornē. Among the well-known prostitutes in the Bible are Rahab (Josh. 2:1–21), Jephthah’s mother (Judg. 11:1), Delilah (Judg. 16:1), and the two women in Solomon’s court (1 Kings 3:16–28). (Although tradition often identifies Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, she is not referred to this way in the Bible.)

Although there is no explicit, absolute prohibition of prostitution in the pentateuchal laws, there are major restrictions. No father should cause or allow his daughter to become a prostitute (Lev. 19:29). Priests were not permitted to marry prostitutes (Lev. 21:7, 14), though this seems to imply a less stringent standard for the general populace. A priest’s daughter who became a prostitute was to be burned in the fire (Lev. 21:9), but no such statement is made for Israelites in general. Earnings from prostitution could not be used for payment of vows (Deut. 23:18).

While prostitution was not absolutely banned, it was the object of severe disapproval and contempt in Israelite society (Gen. 34:31; Judg. 11:1–2). The book of Proverbs sternly warns young men against turning to prostitutes (Prov. 6:26; 7:10; 23:27; 29:3), but these warnings also give evidence that prostitution, however contemptible, was tolerated in some measure. This attitude toward prostitution accords with that in the larger ancient Near Eastern context, though law codes from other Mesopotamian civilizations restricted and regulated prostitution rather than banning it outright. In the NT, Paul particularly refers to the spiritual problem involved in a sexual relationship with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:15–16). Strikingly, however, Jesus includes repentant prostitutes among the citizens of the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:31–32).

Sacred or Cultic Prostitution

The NIV in several places has the term “shrine prostitute” (Gen. 38:21–22; Deut. 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Hos. 4:14). This is a translation of the Hebrew words qadesh (masc.) and qedeshah (fem.), which come from the word qadosh, which means “holy.” Traditionally, this has been understood to refer to male and female prostitutes who performed their services in connection with a temple or shrine. The payments went into the temple treasuries, and the sexual acts were intended to motivate the gods and goddesses to imitate them, assuring in turn the fertility of the land and fruitful crops. This was understood as being in accord with the practices of ancient Eastern fertility cults. In recent scholarship, this traditional understanding has been challenged on two points. First, a number of scholars have found little or no evidence that prostitution in the service of the temple was envisioned as stimulating similar activity among the gods, whether in Israel or in the larger Near Eastern world. Second, while qedeshah certainly refers to a female prostitute in the service of the temple, it is less certain that qadesh refers to a male prostitute; it may simply refer to male cultic personnel with no reference to sexual activity. Whatever the outcome of the discussion, the pentateuchal laws absolutely prohibit prostitution in connection with the temple or a shrine. Deuteronomy 23:17–18 seems to indicate that one of the motivations for women to offer sexual favors in the service of the temple was to pay off a vow, but clearly it condemns the practice.

Prostitution as Metaphor

Already in the pentateuchal legal texts, the sin of forsaking Yahweh, the God of Israel, to serve and worship other gods was analogized to prostitution (Exod. 34:15; Lev. 17:7; 20:5–6; Num. 15:39; Deut. 31:16). But the analogy becomes especially pronounced in the books of the prophets, which contain over half of the OT references to prostitution. Speaking through Jeremiah, God says to Israel, “Under every spreading tree you lay down as a prostitute (Jer. 2:20). In idolatry, Israel does not even “blush with shame” but instead has the “brazen look of a prostitute” (Jer. 3:1–3). Ezekiel portrays Israel and Judah as prostitutes who “lavished” their favors on any gods who passed by (Ezek. 16:15). Indeed, God complains that Israel acted even worse than a prostitute, for “you scorned payment. . . . All prostitutes receive gifts, but you give gifts to all your lovers” (Ezek. 16:31–34). Hosea, who was commanded by God to marry an adulterous woman in an extravagant act of love, mirroring God’s own love for the Israelites, buys and redeems his wife from her prostitution (Hos. 3:1–5). At times, other nations are also metaphorically identified as prostitutes, such as Tyre (Isa. 23:15–17), Nineveh (Nah. 3:4), and Babylon (Rev. 17:1, 15–16; 19:2).

Righteousness

Old Testament

Divine righteousness. Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightness in his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts are righteous (Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgments are righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness (Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked to God’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71) and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader than deliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous), though it does include it.

Human righteousness. Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

It seems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was more concrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of most contemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understanding righteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous person is sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness in the OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7), there are many more references to a righteousness grounded in particular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10). Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpful distinction between “ordinary” and “absolute” righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind of righteousness that we intend when making comments such as “my wife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broad perspective, that her life is characterized predominantly by righteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness, absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparative righteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1 Sam. 24:17; Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is the extraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work of God; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.

Noncanonical Jewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varying greatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of human and divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often is associated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poor and is contrasted with wickedness.

In Greco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtues and thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Roman righteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind of external norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact that righteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Roman literature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often were embedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not only violated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, but also impacted humans.

New Testament

Ordinary human righteousness. Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

Divine righteousness. The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

“The righteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness. There is a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness and his faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66). Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’s saving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g., Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness of God,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22 [2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousness of God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God” could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness from God (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to his righteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms), or some combination of these.

The righteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “the righteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from the Mosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarified in that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews and Gentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguished from righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26). In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a character quality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness of God” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).

In Rom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “the righteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their own righteousness because they are not submitting to “the righteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’s righteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectations of his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness of God” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus (e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key to understanding “the righteousness of God” in the other texts also.

In Rom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5, 16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust in Jesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25) enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). In Jesus we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). The righteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealed and manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous in Christ.

Tax Collector

In the Roman Empire, tax collectors (KJV: “publicans”) were employed to help collect taxes in the provinces. People bid for the job of tax collector, and they were compensated by collecting more than the required tax from the people. Tax collectors were despised by Jews as greedy because of the excessive profits they reaped. They also were counted as traitors because they worked for the Romans. In the NT, tax collectors often are associated with Gentiles and sinners (Matt. 5:46–47; 11:19; 21:32).

Jesus was criticized by the Jewish leaders for eating with “tax collectors and sinners” (Matt. 9:11). Jesus welcomed and taught tax collectors (Luke 5:29; 15:1). Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples, was a tax collector (Matt. 10:3). Zacchaeus was a “chief tax collector,” which probably indicates that he was contracted with the Romans to collect taxes over a specific area, and he supervised others who did the actual collecting (Luke 19:2).

Vineyard

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine. The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen. 9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’s planting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation in Egypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, the land of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine (cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the region are named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23), Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10), Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vine cultivation. Vine cultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced, stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). The walls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes, to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2). Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10). As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek. 17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear good grapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood or rocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook the vineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered in baskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are dried into raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village are allowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Since the production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites, the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace and security (cf. “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” in 1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of the harvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristic expression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signals God’s blessing (2 Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22; Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying the fruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment (Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph. 1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water into wine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’s judgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

Old Testament. The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. The fruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness or blessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wife in Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the main place of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for the woman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” is compared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine” (7:8).

The metaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’s people. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented in terms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). A similar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares the Israelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing of wild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “a corrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vine metaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4; 17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passages describe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa. 27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through the story of the restored vineyard.

New Testament. In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17 pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke 13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as the owner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev. 14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described by means of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies are trampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’s wrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphor in John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself as the “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. No longer are God’s people identified as the vine, which is expected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and the believers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branches depends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the “fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol of his atoning blood can be compared to his metaphorical self-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). See also Plants.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Matthew 21:28-32 is mentioned in the definition.

Jesus Christ

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

Nativity of Christ

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Jesus’ Life

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

Nose

Mentioned only in the OT in most Bible versions (MSG uses “nose” in the NT as part of English idioms; e.g., Matt. 13:57; 21:32), the nose often is referred to in the context of jewelry, as nose rings for women were a fine adornment in ancient Hebrew culture (Gen. 24:47; Ezek. 16:12), in some cases indicative of extravagance (Isa. 3:16–24). Other times, a stronger party would direct a weaker party by means of a hook or a cord in their nose (2 Kings 19:28; 2 Chron. 33:11; Job 40:24).

The Hebrew word for nose, ’ap, could be used metaphorically for anger, much as English speakers might say that an angry person “has steam coming out of his nose.” Thus, the NIV’s “[he] became angry” can translate the Hebrew phrase “[his] nose burned” (Gen. 30:2; Judg. 10:7). The same Hebrew term can also refer to nostrils. The NIV uses the translation “nostrils” several times in the OT, often in poetry, usually in connection with breath (Gen. 2:7; 7:22; 2 Sam. 22:16 [cf. Ps. 18:15]; Job 27:3) or as a source of smoke (2 Sam. 22:9 [cf. Ps. 18:8]; Job 41:20).

The Hebrews also used ’ap to refer to the entire face, normally when a person was bowing facedown. In such instances, “bowed down with his face to the ground” translates the Hebrew phrase “bowed down with nostrils [’appayim] toward the ground” (Gen. 19:1; 1 Sam. 25:41).

Nostril

Parable

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1 Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth such that the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1. The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2. Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circumstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3. Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4. Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5. In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

Submission

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority of another, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference, compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to. Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the terms are synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliance with directions or guidance, while “submission” describes one’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within a formalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

Scripture presents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number of specific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept, and as a general portrait of relationships—for example, patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus. Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

In the OT, the use of the word “submission” (or its derivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function of translator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’s instructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit” is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use forms of “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrew expressions meaning the following: “become a slave to” (Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2 Chron. 30:8); “have a relationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch out hands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and “give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

3. Hypotagē appears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturing toward superiors; in 2 Cor. 9:13, however, it refers to obedience to a decree, in this case confession of the gospel.

4. Hypotassō is by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times in the NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using a form of “submission” (or “to be subject to”). It is used to convey the subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to the seventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s law or righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13); believers to one another (1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves to masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, and powers to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9; James 4:7); younger men to elders (1 Pet. 5:5).

A few additional uses of “submission” in some translations have other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection” (Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and “open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vivid portraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking the specific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen. 12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29); prophets toward God (1 Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3); Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission to Jesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father (Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father (Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24; 15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1 Cor. 7:3–5; 11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

Subordination

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

Toll

Vine

Whore

Common or Secular Prostitution

Sacred or Cultic Prostitution

Prostitution as Metaphor

Showing 1 to 50 of285 results

1. THE VINEDRESSER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Isaiah 5:4 - "What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?"

Matthew 21:28 - "Aman had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ "

Fossilized grape leaves, stem pieces and seeds unearthed from prehistoric deposits indicate the long existence and wide distribution of the grape vine. We know, for example, that it was grown in ancient Egypt and in Canaan prior to the time of Abraham. Viticulture (the tending of vines) also dates far back. Seeds found in the remains of the Swiss lake dwellings of the Bronze period (@3500 B.C.-1900 B.C.), and entombed with mummies in Egypt closely resemble seeds of the oldest and most extensively cultivated species of today. Viticulture’s tradition is almost as old as man; details for grape and wine production figured in the mosaics of the 4th (2400 B.C.), 17th and 18th dynasties of Egypt. According to the Bible, Noah planted a vineyard. In Homer’s time wine was a regular commodity among the Greeks. Pliny described 91 varieties of grapes, distinguished fifty kinds of wines, described vine-training methods.

Viticulture probably had its beginnings in the area around the Caspian Sea; from there grape growing in the old world spread to Asia Minor. The mountain regions of Judea and Samaria, largely unsuited for cereals, were well adapted for wine growing. Even the poorest country family would have a few vines, so that they could have a few grapes, and there were some to be found in the towns, growing in courtyards. But there were also real vineyards, worked in a big way, in the same way that industrial growers today have extensive cultivated areas. Of course, today we have large vineyards from which grapes are gathered for uses other than the making of wine; for example, the making of grape juices and jellies, among others. But the basic method of growing remains virtually the same.

The vine branches were usually allowed to lie along the ground, or to fall over the terraces, but sometimes they were raised above the ground with sticks or supported on poles to form a bower, in much the same way that we see in the fertile vineyards of California, for example. In the Old Testament times, no other seeds were allowed to be planted in the vineyard, but this apparantly had been allowed to lapse by the later time, because we read of the man who had a fig tree in his vineyard.

Vines required constant care to keep them productive, even though the climate and the soil of Palestine were excellent for their growth. Hence they were pruned every spring, and the ground was ploughed and kept free of weeds. Pruned branches were gathered and burned.

A part of every vineyard was the tower for the watchman, a winepress hollowed out of a flat rock, and a vat into which the wine flowed from the press. During the harvest season watchmen were stationed in the towers, and sometimes the whole family of the owner took their residence in booths as a protection against thieves. The harvest season was always one of special happiness. The grape gatherers, armed with little hooked knives, cut the full bunches, which were thrown into the vat and trodden by the barefoot workers to the sound of songs and clapping.

As was required by Mosaic law, the gleanings were left to the poor, and every seventh year the vines were allowed to lie fallow. As the vat filled, the wine was poured for storage into new goatskin bags or into large pottery containers.

The vine and vineyard are among the most frequently used similes in biblical literature. The biblical expression, for instance, "to be under the vine and the fig tree" meant the delight of doing nothing whatever, surely a marvelous concept for a people whose whole lives were spent in wearisome toil.

2. Close, but No Closer

Illustration

Glenn L. Borreson

The wife of Henry IV, King of France, in the 1600s, had numerous intense enemies including the Roman Catholic cardinal and her son who became king. On her death bed, however, she promised to forgive all her enemies, including the cardinal. The priest hearing her confession asked her, "Madame, as a sign of reconciliation, will you send him the bracelet you are wearing on your arm?" "No," she stated flatly, "that would be too much." How close to the kingdom! How close, but no closer, when good intentions do not give way to action. In the end, good intentions are no substitute for doing the will of God.

3. Decisions Based on Integrity

Illustration

Keith Wagner

Adrian Thomas held a bonfire out behind his drugstore in Meyersdale, PA, which his family owned and operated for three generations. During the winter in 1992, he came to a fateful decision. He had seen too many deaths of his friends caused by lung cancer and heart disease. For ninety-six years, his family business sold tobacco products. On that day, Thomas, his family members, and his employees boxed up all the cigars, snuff, and pipe-tobacco products and piled them in the middle of the parking lot. Thomas then struck a match and used his state tobacco license to start the fire. A crowed gathered and Thomas told the local media he could no longer put profits ahead of the health of his patrons. Perhaps that single event didn't change the smoking habits in society and other stores probably absorbed profits, but, this was not a decision based on economics, Thomas was responding from his own sense of integrity. (from God's Little Lessons on Life for Dad, Honor Books)

It took Thomas years to change his family business. Thankfully, he made a commitment and like the first son in our story, acted out of a sense of integrity.

4. “Show Me Now!”

Illustration

Richard Dake

There's a wonderful scene near the end of the movie "My Fair Lady" in which Liza Doolittle sings words that God must also sing. She says, "Words! Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! I get words all day through; first from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do? Don't talk of stars burning above; If you're in love, Show me!… Never do I ever want to hear another word. There isn't one I haven't heard… Don't talk of love lasting through time. Make me no undying vow. Show me now!"

5. Keeping Promises

Illustration

I read a story some time back, I don't have a clue whether it was fiction, or true, but it really typifies the current American attitude, and even to some degree, the current Christian attitude about promises that we make. There was a fairly rich young man who had been taken to the hospital, critically ill. His condition worsened, and he was confined there for quite a few weeks. His doctor even had told him that he wasn't sure if he'd recover, but that they would continue to do all they could. The man was obviously scared to death, and said to the doctor, "please, doctor, do everything you can, I don't want to die, I have so much to do yet in life, and if you can help me get better, I'll even donate $10,000 to the fund for the new hospital. The young man happily began to improve and recovered, and a few weeks later was released and went home.

Several months later, while he was out in the town, he saw the doctor on the street, and the doctor asked him how he felt. The young man said, Doc, I haven't felt better any time in my life. The doctor said that's great, because I wanted to ask you about the money you said you wanted to donate to the new hospital fund. You remember you said if you got well, you'd like to donate $10,000, and we could really use that now. The young man said, Man, If I said that, I must have been really sick.

For some people, making and KEEPING promises seems to be a really tough issue, for some reason or another. But fortunately for us, there is someone whose promises are always KEPT.

6. Needing a Change of Heart

Illustration

Brian P. Stoffregen

The primary point of this parable of the two sons is about having a change in heart, not just about saying or doing the right things. The following stories might illustrate this point.

Once there were two couples. Couple A were married in a large, beautiful church ceremony. They pledge life-long faithfulness and love to each other in the moving words of their vows. However, their life together has been one of abuse both physical and verbal. They both have been unfaithful to each other.

Couple B live together. They had no public ceremony. They signed no marriage license. They spoke no vows in the presence of witnesses. However, their life together is a loving and affirming relationship. They have remained faithful to each other.

Which couple would you say is doing the will of God?

Both need change of hearts - couple A in the way they act towards each other and couple B in their attitudes about the importance of the words in a public ceremony.

Another analogy might be with those who attend church and say all the right words, but whose lives fall somewhat short of John's "way of righteousness" and others who live exemplary lives; but who want nothing to do with "organized religion" and the public expression of their faith.

Both need "a change of heart".

7. Integrity Deficit Disorder

Illustration

Otis Young

What are some of the symptoms of integrity deficit disorder?

A person who is afflicted with this disorder knows what's right but doesn't follow through and do what's right. He or she makes a promise or commitment, then fails to keep it. Thus when you meet a person with integrity deficit disorder you're never quite sure if you can trust that person or not.

A second symptom is also one of the causes: people who have integrity deficit disorder live from the outside in rather than from the inside out. They let their feelings and emotional responses of the moment govern their behavior more than doing what's right regardless of their feelings of the moment.

To put it another way, people with integrity deficit disorder are reactive rather than proactive. Reactive individuals base their decisions and actions on the outward circumstances of the moment, what's going on around them. If someone is rude to them, they are rude in return. They are affected by their social environment. Reactive people build their emotional lives around the behavior of others, empowering the weaknesses of other people to control them. They let other people decide how they are going to act.

In addition, reactive people are often affected by the physical environment. If the weather is good, they feel good. If it isn't, they let it affect their attitude and their performance. Worse still, reactive people blame whatever happens to them on someone or something outside of them. They rarely take any responsibility for what's happened to them. It's always the fault of someone or something else.

Proactive people, on the other hand, carry their own weather with them. Whether it rains or shines makes no difference to them. They are value driven and if their value is to produce good quality work it isn't a function of whether the weather is conducive to it or not. Proactive people also do not let the social environment control their actions or decisions.

That's where integrity comes in. Having integrity is about behaving in the way you promised to behave even though the mood in which you made the promises has changed or the environment outside you has changed. If you have integrity it protects you from your changing moods, desires and feelings. It even protects you from the changing moods of other people. It protects you from saying you are going to something and then not following through.

One day Jesus told a story designed for people who have integrity deficit disorder. His target audience were people who claimed to be the most religious.

8. Fathers and Sons

Illustration

William J. Carl, III

A father once tried to talk to his son about how college was going: The father said, "How are things going?" The son said, "Good." The father said, "And the dormitory?" He said, "Good." The father said, "How are your studies going?" He said, "Good." The father said, "Have you decided on a major yet?" He said, "Yes." "Well, what is it?" asked the father. The son said, "Communication."

So it goes as parents and children try to talk to each other. So it was for the two sons in Jesus' story.

9. The King's Children

Illustration

Verne Arens

In the first scene of William Shakespeare's King Lear, the old king summons his three daughters to tell them he is to retire and wants to distribute his power among them. Before doing so, however, he wants some clear declaration some reassurance of their love and devotion.

Two of his daughters, Goneril and Regan, are quick to give him what he wants. Goneril declares: Sire, I love you more than words can wield the matter, dearer than eyesight, space and liberty, beyond what can be valued, rich or rare.

Cordelia, the third daughter and her father's favorite, is not so accommodating to her father's quest for a verbal assurance of love. She has nothing to say since, in her view, her relationship to her father, the king, already is obvious. I love your majesty according to my bond: no more, no less. Beyond that she could provide no flattering reassurance.

Furious at not getting the answer he wanted from his favorite child, Lear disowns Cordelia and divides his kingdom between the two daughters who gave him the easy, yet superficial, answer he sought.

Goneril and Regan, however, soon turn on their father, robbing him of his dignity. He goes mad, sick at heart over their deceit.

In the end it is Cordelia who returns to her father in his madness to live out the bond between them. Cordelia: the daughter who could make no false promises about her love and its constancy for the future, but who lived it most truly.

10. Getting All the Facts

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

A little boy was standing on the sidewalk in the middle of a city block. He was obviously waiting for something. An older man approached him and asked for what he was waiting.

The little boy confidently told the older man that he was waiting for the bus. The man laughed and said the bus stop was in the next block. The boy acknowledged that fact but insisted the bus would stop for him right here.

The older man became annoyed at what he thought was insolence. He raised his voice and told the little boy that he'd better start walking if he hoped to ride that bus. The boy politely turned down the suggestion and said he would wait for the bus right where he stood.

The man fumed at the little boy and started walking off. But before he was too far away, he heard the screeching of brakes. He turned around and couldn't believe his eyes. The bus was actually stopping for the little boy. The bus door opened and the boy started climb aboard. But just before he did, he turned toward the man down the street and yelled, "My daddy is the bus driver."

11. Obedience Is a Means

Illustration

Martha Thatcher

Whenever I take the opportunity to actively love God in personal obedience, I end up sensing a new tenderness in my heart toward Him and a stronger resolve to obey again next time. Obedience is not an end, but a means - a means to express our love to God, and a means to increase our love for God. It is a catalyst in the process of loving God and becoming more like Jesus.

12. Cost-free Discipleship Produces Wimps

Illustration

Brennan Manning

Brennan Manning in his book, The Signature of Jesus, writes, "We have made it too easy to be a Christian. The sole requirements are the recitation of a creed and attendance at a local church where there is no community and little fellowship. Christianity used to be risky business; it is no longer. Cost-free discipleship produces wimps."

13. Who Are the Superstars Now?

Illustration

Edward F. Markquart

There was a tough minded football coach who had high expectations for his football players. At the conclusion of one practice, he demanded that his players run three miles that night, do two hundred push ups, and study the play book for at least an hour. And all the superstars and first team shouted out: "You can count on us, coach. We'll do that." That night, all the superstars of the first team gathered at the captain's house to begin their exercises, but they happened to turn on the television set and the professional wrestling championships were on. Within a short time, the superstars were slouched into the couch and the evening was slowly wasting away.

At the conclusion of that same football practice earlier in the day, when the coach insisted on three miles of running, two hundred push ups and studying the plays for an hour, the third stringers whined out loud: "What do you mean, coach? We never get to play anyway. Why should we do all that work?" Later that night, when gathered over at the home of the waterboy, the third string guys flicked on the television set, watched it for a second, and groaned when someone said: "Let's run those miles and do the pushups." The third stringers had a change of heart and went and did all the work.

Which of the two groups did the will of the coach. The answer is so obvious.

14. So Much Comes from Our Choices

Illustration

Mike Baker

I want to share with you a very real example of the impact that our daily choices makes on our future. This is a story of two close friends who were teammates on a football team. Friends who shared a view of a promising future in professional sports and also who looked forward to continued success during their collegiate career.

These two friends made separate choices last November. One chose to stay at home while the other decided to go hunting with two other friends. The hunting wasn't all that was on the list of activities though. These three drank heavily up into the early morning hours at which time they decided to go driving.

Jason Watts, the center of the Kentucky football team was the friend that chose to drink and drive. While driving he lost control of his truck and a horrible accident occurred. Watts and the other two friends were thrown from the truck and all sustained injuries. Only Watts survived. The other two, also legally drunk, lay dead on the ground.

Jason Watts went to court recently to face the consequences of his actions. He was remorseful. He wished it had never happened, but it did. All because of his choice. He pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree manslaughter and has been sentenced to 10 years in jail. His life is changed forever because of the impact of his choice that November night.

The other teammate is Tim Couch. He had decided not to join the friends that weekend. Tim was picked as the number one draft pick in the NFL. He signed a 7 year contract for a reported $48 million dollars, including a $12.5 million dollar signing bonus with the Cleveland Browns. His life is also now changed forever, in part preserved by his choice that November night.

The future plans for these two teammates were disrupted and changed forever due to these choices. The team had to face the next two games of the season without the services of Watts at the center position and also with the heaviness of mourning and grief. They lost these last two games. Off the field, one teammate went on with his plans to wealth and success. Watts faces jail and the loss of his dream to play professionally. Two other families clutch their memories of their sons who were killed that night, sons that will never touch a football again nor draw another breath.

So much can come from a set of choices.

15. Fire on One End, Fool on the Other

Illustration

Julian Gordy

A physician went to talk about the dangers of smoking to a bunch of High School students. He scared them with grim pictures of smokers' lungs and tales of death from lung cancer. The doctor finished his speech by saying, "Remember, fire on one end, fool on the other."

The students were all impressed, especially those boys who would sneak out behind the shop building at lunch to light one up. But then a couple of the guys saw the doctor himself lighting up when he got back in his car after the lecture. And his credibility was shot. He was the talk of the campus. It would have been better for the no-smoking campaign if he had never come to speak. Saying one thing and doing another is something nobody respects.

16. Availability

Illustration

King Duncan

A man applied for a job as a handyman. The prospective employer asked, "Can you do carpentry?" The man answered in the negative.

"How about brick laying?" Again the man answered, "No."

The employer asked, "Well, what about electrical work?" The man said "No, I don't know anything about that either."

Finally the employer said, "Well, tell me then what is handy about you." The man replied, "I live just around the corner."

Sometimes the greatest ability we can have is availability. To be where God can call us, to be within whisper range of his summons, that is the beginning of a life of meaningful discipleship.

17. Which Coaching Is Better?

Illustration

King Duncan

Bonnie St. John Deane in her book, Succeeding Sane, tells about the movie, Hoop Dreams, a true story. For four years a documentary film team takes cameras and follows the lives of two talented young basketball players from one of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. The young man with more natural talent gets a high school scholarship, a posh summer job, and a coach from hell. However, the constant badgering, pressure, and demeaning style of the coach slowly destroys any fun the kid ever felt in the game. Once the desire to play begins to crumble, he begins to sabotage his own success. He becomes more vulnerable to injuries, his grades drop, and he acts up socially with drugs and sex. His cry for help goes unheard.

Meanwhile, the kid with less talent gets less help and less pressure. He is left to struggle in worse schools combating pressure from gangs. He has to want to play or it isn't going to happen. Despite his father being jailed for drugs and his mother being on and off welfare, he works to stay in school, to stay on the team. Finally he wins a college scholarship and goes on to play ball better than ever. By the end of the story, it is clear that he is a happier, healthier person more likely to be successful with or without basketball.

The Pharisees were like the demanding coach badgering, pressuring, demeaning. They wanted perfection. Jesus knew that is not the way to bring hurting people into the kingdom of God. He did it with love and acceptance. He did it by living out God's amazing, startling, absurd grace.

18. Just Posing

Illustration

King Duncan

Writer Elizabeth Sherrill tells of visiting the ice-skating rink at Rockefeller Center in New York City a few years ago. Dozens of people skated around the rink. But in the center of the rink was a lovely blond woman in an attractive skater's outfit. This woman was stretching and posing, stretching and posing. Elizabeth waited expectantly for this lovely young woman to finish with her posing and begin skating. But she never did.

On other visits to the rink, Elizabeth again saw this woman. She was always dressed like a professional skater. And she spent lots of time doing skater's poses. But she never skated. Not once did she take a turn around the rink. She was all appearance and no substance. For many of us, that hits too close to home. We may look like followers of Jesus, we may even talk like followers of Jesus, but deep in our hearts we know it's only stretching and posing, stretching and posing.

19. Losing Authority

Illustration

King Duncan

There is a wonderful story about a group of military leaders who succeeded in building a super computer that was able to solve any problem large or small, strategic or tactical. These military leaders assembled in front of the new machine for a demonstration. The engineer conducting the demonstration instructed these officers to feed a difficult tactical problem into it. The military leaders proceeded to describe a hypothetical situation to the computer and then asked the pivotal question: attack or retreat? This enormous super computer hummed away for an hour and then printed out its one-word answer . . . YES.

The generals looked at each other, somewhat stupefied. Finally one of them submits a second request to the computer: YES WHAT? Instantly the computer responded: YES, SIR.

The Pharisees, like these generals, were accustomed to people saying "Yes, sir" to them. They were the religious authorities. Jesus' popularity threatened their authority, so they chose to threaten his with trick questions.

20. Be Careful Who You Judge

Illustration

Roger G. Talbott

A young minister graduated from seminary just before World War I and he was appointed to a church in a very small town. He had been there only a couple of weeks when he received the call every new minister dreads – the call to do his first funeral. The person who had died was not a member of his church. She was, in fact, a woman with a very bad reputation. Her husband was a railroad engineer who was away from home much of the time. She had rented rooms in their house to men who worked on the railroad and rumor had it that she rented more than just rooms when her husband was away. The young preacher, faced with his first funeral, found no one who had a good word to say about this woman, until he entered the small old-fashioned grocery store on the day before the funeral. He began to talk to the store owner about his sadness that the first person he would bury would be someone about which nothing good could be said. The store owner didn't reply at first and then, in his silence, he appeared to make a decision. He took out his store ledger and laid it on the counter between him and the preacher. He opened the ledger at random and, covering the names in the left-hand column, he pointed to grocery bills written in red – groceries that people had bought on credit and then the column that showed the bill had been paid.

He said, "Every month, that woman would come in and ask me who was behind in their grocery bills. It was usually some family who had sickness or death or some poor woman trying to feed her kids when her husband drank up the money. She would pay their bill and she made me swear never to tell. But, I figure now that she is dead, people ought to know especially those who benefited from her charity who have been most critical of her."

"Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you."

21. Daring Words

Illustration

Larry Powell

The Gospel according to Mark, commonly accepted to be the earliest of the synoptics, relates that Jesus began his Galilean ministry by 1. making an announcement, 2. extending an invitation, and 3. issuing a command. It would be pressing the matter entirely too far to even remotely suggest that the sequence of events was intentional, yet there is a certain familiarity about the sequence itself. As a matter of fact, the three ingredients, broadly categorized above, probably bear a striking resemblance to the sermon you will likely hear in your particular church on any given Sunday: a. the announcement of a Gospel truth; b. the exhortation, with some degree of urgency, to accomplish something in the name of Christ, and c. the invitation to respond. Intentional or not, Jesus began his ministry with a format exceptionally accommodating to Gospel preachers. However, let us take up the sequence as described by Mark.

1. The announcement. The arrest of John the baptizer apparently served as the catalyst for Jesus to reveal the messianic secret. For thirty years, he had maintained a low profile, preparing himself, shaping his perspectives, waiting - waiting for the proper time to thrust himself prominently into the midst of human affairs. At last, the moment had arrived: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel" (1:15). Daring words! He had made bold as a young man sometime earlier in his hometown synagogue to proclaim that the Scriptures had been fulfilled at his reading. The Nazarenes responded by chasing him from the community. He knew full well that there would be a more general uprising against him now by both civil and religious authorities. But there was no choice. The groundwork had been laid, preparations had been completed, John was in prison, and the alarm must continue to be sounded: "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

2. The invitation. He would need help. Passing along the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew. Without the slightest qualification, he said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." Take notice that no questions were asked, no excuses offered, no "process planning" nor introspective "objective-setting" dialogue transpired. Mark says, "And immediately they left their nets and followed him." Going a little farther, two other brothers, James and John heard a similar, abrupt invitation to respond in like manner. How do you account for the fact that these four individuals, secure in employment, having obligations and immediate responsibilities, walked away from it all to follow one who had come upon them from behind, no questions asked? Perhaps a part of the answer is found in 1:22 where Jesus is referred to as one who spoke with "authority," and not as the scribes. This particular reflection upon the scribes, implying a certain insipidness, interests us. They possessed authority by virtue of their position. Why did they not speak with authority? Conjecture is risky business, but we have a notion that their recitations were mechanical, unfeeling, and sing-song. Devotion may have been reduced to formalized vocation, and the sharp edge of adeptness dulled by neglect. Figureheads occupy space but command little respect, whether they be scribes, ministers, bishops, church-school teachers, or members of a church staff. One must be more than simply a "figure-head." Perhaps we should each take counsel with ourselves regarding the phrase, "for he taught as one having authority, not as the scribes."

3. The command. Jesus rebuked an unclean spirit and commanded it to come out of a man in the synagogue, "and the unclean spirit ... came out of him" (1:26). Let us note the response: "They were all amazed and said ‘With authority he commands even the unclean spirits’ " (1:27).

Jesus began his public ministry with an announcement, an invitation, and a command, but most of all with authority.

22. The Tragedy of the Unprepared Life - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

There's a true story that comes form the sinking of the Titanic. A frightened woman found her place in a lifeboat that was about to be lowered into the raging North Atlantic. She suddenly thought of something she needed, so she asked permission to return to her stateroom before they cast off. She was granted three minutes or they would leave without her.

She ran across the deck that was already slanted at a dangerous angle. She raced through the gambling room with all the money that had rolled to one side, ankle deep. She came to her stateroom and quickly pushed a side her diamond rings and expensive bracelets and necklaces as she reached to the shelf above her bed and grabbed three small oranges. She quickly found her way back to the lifeboat and got in.

Now that seems incredible because thirty minutes earlier she would not have chosen a crate of oranges over the smallest diamond. But death had boarded the Titanic. One blast of its awful breath had transformed all values. Instantaneously, priceless things had become worthless. Worthless things had become priceless. And in that moment she preferred three small oranges to a crate of diamonds.

There are events in life, which have the power to transform the way we look at the world. Jesus' parable about the ten virgins offers one of these types of events, for the parable is about the Second Coming of Christ. But Jesus doesn't come right out and say this. Rather, he let's the story describe it for him. The woman on the sinking Titanic understood, in the light of her current circumstances, that she must make preparations for living on a lifeboat. Diamonds would not suffice, only the precious resources of an orange were good enough. Likewise, in this world where Christ may return at any moment, the parable warns, we must be ready.

Weddings are one of these kinds of events. And every time I have a wedding, I admonish those in the wedding to be ready, to make a special effort to be ready on the day of the ceremony. I plead with them to arrive early and be dressed and ready to go. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't.

Jesus' parable about a wedding, is told not from the vantage point of the bride and groom, but of the ten young maidens who had been invited to the happy occasion, five of them were foolish, said Jesus, five of them were wise. What was the measure of their wisdom? In a word, their readiness to be a part of the event. All of the young women had oil in their lamps, but five had an additional supply.

This is, of course, foreign to our concepts of weddings today. Weddings in our society are announced for a specific time and place, and if things are late in getting started, those invited guests begin to fidget a bit. But in first century Palestine, a wedding could happen anytime within several days. The uncertainty was considered a part of the excitement of the wedding. The bridegroom hoped to catch some of the bridal party napping. But fairness required that some announcement be made, so just before the big event a messenger was sent through the streets shouting: Behold the bridegroom commeth." The alert ones in the wedding party would respond, and the others would be left behind.

In Jesus parable, the cry came at midnight. This was often the case; most bridegrooms chose to come late at night. The sleeping attendants were awakened. It was then that they realized that they did not have enough oil in their lamps to get through the night. Panicked, they attempted to borrow some from the other bridesmaids. But they responded, "If we give you our oil, there won't be enough for us. Hurry out to the dealers and buy some yourself." So the five foolish maidens hurried out, but by the time they returned the door had already been closed. They knocked on the door and pleaded to be a part of the festivities, but the groom said: "If you belonged at this event you would already have been present." Jesus concluded: Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

What is this parable suggesting to us? I would like to make a few suggestions…

1. Some things cannot be borrowed.
2. Some things cannot be put off.
3. We can miss out on great opportunities.

23. At the Root of Rebellion

Illustration

Alexander Maclaren

Important lessons are given by this alternation of the two ideas of faith and unbelief, obedience and disobedience. Disobedience is the root of unbelief. Unbelief is the mother of further disobedience. Faith is voluntary submission within a person's own power. If faith is not exercised, the true cause lies deeper than all intellectual reasons. It lies in the moral aversion of human will and in the pride of independence, which says, "who is Lord over us? Why should we have to depend on Jesus Christ?" As faith is obedience and submission, so faith breeds obedience, but unbelief leads on to higher-handed rebellion. With dreadful reciprocity of influence, the less one trusts, the more he disobeys; the more he disobeys, the less he trusts.

24. Rejoicing for the Found

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

In Dr. R. Alan Culpepper's commentary on Luke, he ends the first two parables in Luke 15 with the following observation:

In both parables, rejoicing calls for celebration, and the note of celebration may be exaggerated to emphasize the point. Neither sheep nor coins can repent, but the parable aims not at calling the "sinners" to repentance but at calling the "righteous" to join the celebration. Whether one will join the celebration is all-important because it reveals whether one's relationships are based on merit or mercy. Those who find God's mercy offensive cannot celebrate with the angels when a sinner repents. Thus they exclude themselves from God's grace.

I think that this is a very important question for churches today. More than one congregational member has not rejoiced over the influx of new members in the congregation. The non-rejoicing criticism seems especially prevalent when the "found" are somehow different from the mainstream members.

25. Neighbors Who Never Met - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

What parable would make a man with three doctoral degrees (one in medicine, one in theology, one in philosophy) leave civilization with all of its culture and amenities and depart for the jungles of darkest Africa? What parable could induce a man, who was recognized as one of the best concert organists in all of Europe, go to a place where there were no organs to play. What parable would so intensely motivate a man that he would give up a teaching position in Vienna, Austria to go and deal with people who were so deprived that they were still living in the superstitions of the dark ages for all practical purposes. The man who I am talking about, of course, is Dr. Albert Schweitzer. And the single parable that so radically altered his life, according to him, was our text for this morning. It was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

The Rich Man and Lazarus were neighbors, you know. They saw each other every day. Oh, not socially you understand, but there was contact. Every day the Rich Man saw this beggar at his front gate. Who were these men?

We shall call the Rich Man Dives [pronounced ‘Dive-ees': it's Latin for "Rich Man" as he has been called for centuries] Dives would have felt very comfortable living in our present time. He was a progressive kind of a guy. He was self-indulgent and this is the age of self-indulgency. The contrasting life-styles of these two men is so obvious that you can't miss it. Dives was a connoisseur, a lover of the arts, one who knows and appreciates fine living, four star restaurants.

We are told in vs. 19 that he habitually dressed in purple. Purple was known as the color of royalty because it was the most expensive dye in the ancient world. Only the upper echelon and the high priest could afford it. We are also told that his undergarments were made of fine linen. Linen, the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

The other man in the story is Lazarus. How can we describe Lazarus? Lararus is homeless. We are told in vs. 20 that he was a cripple. Lazarus barely made it from day to day, living off the leftovers thrown to him by Dives as he daily passed him. He is just a survivor, that's all you can say of him.

One day, said Jesus, both men died. Death after all is the great equalizer. Death does not care about your social standing, your color, or your standing in the community. Lazarus, said Jesus, was carried away by the angel of death unto heaven, where he occupied the seat of honor next to Abraham. About Dives, the rich man, all that Jesus says is that he was buried. Isn't that strange that that is all that he says? After all, Dives funeral must having been something that the community would remember for years to come. Apparently, however, that fact failed to impress Jesus. Oh, Jesus did add one additional fact about Dives' death that may be of interest to you. His soul was sent to hell.

This is an unnerving story. I can well see why this was the irritating grain of sand in Albert Schweitzer's oyster. Why is this story so bothersome? For a few moments this morning I would like to share exactly why. It is bothersome because….

First, it shows how God reverses the standards of the world.
Second, it is a terrible fate for a man who was not mean.
Third, the rich man begs to warn his living brothers.

26. Dealing With the Pain of Rejection - Sermon Opener

Illustration

James W. Moore

There is no pain in the world quite like it: the awful pain of feeling rejected. It hurts! It crushes the spirit and breaks the heart. Let me show you what I mean with a true story.

Pastor James Moore tells a story about a girl named Jessica. She was a tall, slender, sixteen-year-old blonde girl, who looked like she might grow up to be a model or president of the P.T.A., or a corporate executive. She was attractive, outgoing, personable, radiant, and happy. She was an only child and her parents were devoted to her and so proud of her. A member of his church she did a youth "speak-out" in an evening worship service. Her words were inspired and thoughtful from the pulpit that night. She was so wholesome, so clean-cut, so full of life.

But, the next morning, an urgent ringing of the telephone. It was Jessica's mother alarmed, concerned, frightened saying that Jessica had been taken to the emergency room during the night and had been admitted into the hospital as a patient. When Moore got there and walked into that hospital room, it was a stark, gloomy situation. The drapes were closed, the room was dark, heavy despair was in the air we breathed. There was Jessica only hours before happy, radiant, full of life but now, laying there in a hospital bed, weak, pale, listless, almost the picture of death. She was emotionally drained, completely wrung out, so much so that she literally did not have the strength to lift her arms, she could not walk, she could hardly hold up her head. They talked for a moment, prayed together and then he left the room. Jessica's mother came out into the hallway. Her mother said, "After we got home from church last night, Jessica had a phone call. Just as she hung up the receiver she fainted and when we revived her, she was physically unable to walk… she was so weak. We called an ambulance and brought her here to the hospital." Moore asked, "Do you know of anything that might have caused this?" The mother blinked as tears flooded into her eyes, she looked away and said, "Well, yes, that telephone call last night was to notify Jessica that she had been "black-balled" by the sorority she wanted to join."

Now, here was a young girl, sixteen years old, an only child, who for all of her life had had almost everything she wanted. At that particular moment what she wanted more than anything was to be accepted into that sorority and somebody had rejected her. One person for some unknown reason had "black-balled" her and the trauma of that blatant rejection was too much for her. She couldn't handle it. She was not faking. The doctors were sure of that. She was just so hurt that it crushed her emotionally, physically, and spiritually.

Here we see dramatically the awful pain of feeling rejected. Now I want to leave Jessica in the hospital for just a moment. We are going to get her out later, but right now the point is clear. The pain of feeling rejected can be devastating.

Sometimes we "feel" rejected when we really aren't being rejected. We only think we are. Have you heard about the man who had to quit going to football games because every time the team went into a huddle he thought they were talking about him! Now, he wasn't being rejected, but he thought he was. Let me hurry to say though, that even when imagined the pain is just as real!

That's what happens in Jesus' parable. Remember how the younger brother runs away to the far country, squanders his money in riotous living, but then ashamed and penitent he returns home. The father is so overjoyed. He had feared the worst that his young son might be dead! But here he is alive and well and home, safe and sound. The father is so happy that he calls for a great celebration. But when the elder brother hears of it. He is hurt, jealous, confused, and angry. He feels sorry for himself, but more than that and worse, he feels that the father has rejected him! Of course, we know better! We know that the father has not rejected him at all. In fact, the parable is misnamed. Instead of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, it should be called the Parable of the Gracious Father! Because, you see, the theme of the parable is not the revelry of the Prodigal, nor is it the bitterness of the elder brother, no; the theme here is the goodness of the father, the faithfulness of God. The message here is that God cares and that He wants both of His sons (all of His children) to come and be a part of the celebration.

But the elder brother missed it. He mistakenly felt rejected and it deflated and crushed him and left him spiritually bankrupt. The feeling of rejection can do that to us. But the Christian faith has good news for those who feel rejected, the good news of healing and wholeness. So when you feel rejected, here are a few simple guidelines to remember.

1. Feelings are temporary, so go and talk to somebody
2. The person rejecting you is the one with the problem
3. Remember how to laugh and don't take yourself too seriously
4. Remember that God accepts you.

27. Martin Luther King, Jr., A Servant of Christ

Illustration

Mark Trotter

In the Union Tribune there was an article about Martin Luther King, Jr., which included an interview with Vincent Harding, a professor at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, a Methodist seminary.

Harding said that King's detractors like to point out that he was a human being, that he had faults, human foibles. He was certainly not a saint, Harding points out. He made mistakes in judgment. He put his marriage to the test. He also suffered from human frailties, like anxiety and depression.

But Christianity proclaims a God who came to us as we are, accepted us as we are, forgave us and gave us new life, and thus revealed that we do not have to be righteous in order to be loved by God. We don't have to have a pure life in order to follow Jesus. We just have to be faithful.

He comes to us as he came to his disciples, and says to us, "Follow me." To "follow me" means, identifying with the poor and the oppressed, loving the sinner, and living sacrificially for others in this world, taking up your cross. That is the sole qualification for everybody to be his disciple - that you will take up your cross.

Martin Luther King understood that, I think, probably better than anybody else in our time. Like all historical figures, he will be interpreted from different perspectives. But the way he would want to be interpreted is that he was a "servant of Christ."

28. Obedience Is the Gateway for Love

Illustration

Jennette F. Scholer

Shortly after arriving at the Keller household, Annie Sullivan wrote, "I am convinced that obedience is the gateway by which knowledge, yes and even love, enter the mind of the child." With this remarkable insight, Sullivan had the courage to teach Helen to obey - to sit at the table, to eat properly, to fold her napkin. It was by first learning obedience that Helen learned the concept of language and also grew to love her teacher.

Annie Sullivan's words speak to us as we reflect on Zechariah's and Mary's questions. "Obedience is the gateway by which knowledge, yes and love, enter" our minds. It is in acts of obedience that we grow in the knowledge and love of God.

29. Saving the Lost

Illustration

Quoted by Anglican Bishop J.D. Ryle about 100 years ago:

A flood of false doctrine has broken in upon us. Men are beginning to tell us "that God is too merciful to punish souls for ever...that all mankind, however wicked and ungodly...will sooner or later be saved." We are to embrace what is called "kinder theology," and treat hell as a pagan fable...This question lies at the very foundation of the whole Gospel. The moral attributes of God, His justice, His holiness, His purity, are all involved in it. The Scripture has spoken plainly and fully on the subject of hell... If words mean anything, there is such a place as hell. If texts are to be interpreted fairly, there are those who will be cast into it...

The same Bible which teaches that God in mercy and compassion sent Christ to die for sinners, does also teach that God hates sin, and must from His very nature punish all who cleave to sin or refuse the salvation He has provided. God knows that I never speak of hell without pain and sorrow. I would gladly offer the salvation of the Gospel to the very chief of sinners. I would willingly say to the vilest and most profligate of mankind on his deathbed, "Repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be save." But God forbid that I should ever keep back from mortal man that scripture reveals a hell as well as heaven...that men may be lost as well as saved.

30. The Parable of the Five Brothers

Illustration

Joachim Jeremias

The first point is concerned with the reversal of fortune in the after-life (vv. 19-26), the second (vv. 27-31) with the petition of the rich man that Abraham may send Lazarus to his five brethren. . . [Jesus places] the stress is on the second point. That means that Jesus does not want to comment on a social problem, nor does he intend to give teaching about the after-life, but he relates the parable to warn men who resemble the brothers of the rich man of the impending danger. Hence the poor Lazarus is only a secondary figure, introduced by way of contrast. The parable is about the five brothers, and it should not be styled the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, but the parable of the Six Brothers.

The surviving brothers, who have their counterpart in the men of the Flood generation [Jeremias' reference to Noah's generation], living a careless life, heedless of the rumble of the approaching flood (Matt. 24:37-39), are men of this world, like their dead brother. Like him they live in selfish luxury, deaf to God's word, in the belief that death ends all (v. 28). Scornfully, Jesus was asked by these skeptical worldlings for a valid proof of a life after death, if they were to be paying heed to his warning. Jesus wanted to open their eyes, but to grant their demand would not be the right way to do so. Why did Jesus refuse it? Because its fulfillment would have been meaningless; even the greatest wonder, resurrection, would be in vain [in John 11:46 ff. the raising of Lazarus served to complete the hardening of the Jews]. He who will not submit to the word of God, will not be converted by a miracle. The demand for a sign is an evasion and a sign of impenitence. Hence the sentence is pronounced: "God will never give a sign to this generation" (Mark 8.12).

31. Sheep + Me = Righteousness

Illustration

Michael P. Green

The Chinese character for “righteousness” is most interesting. It is composed of two separate characters—one standing for a lamb, the other for me. When “sheep” is placed directly above “me,” a new character—“righteousness” is formed. This is a helpful picture of the grace of God. Between me, the sinner, and God, the Holy One, there is interposed by faith the Lamb of God. By virtue of his sacrifice, he has received me on the ground of faith, and I have become righteous in his sight.

32. Who Can Be Saved?

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

"Zacchaeus was a wee little man, a wee little man was he ...." Many people have learned that song in Sunday school. We might be tempted to think, therefore, that this is a story "for children only." Nothing could be further from the truth. The story of Zacchaeus is one of the most important stories for children and adults in the entire Gospel of Luke. It's important because it tells us how Christians can live with wealth. It's important because the story of Zacchaeus tells how it is that we can be saved.

Zacchaeus was a man who gouged his riches out of his people in the form of additional taxes. He was a man hated by the people of Jericho. Zacchaeus was a sinner. He had broken most of the laws of his people. Zacchaeus stands quite in contrast to a rich young ruler whose story Luke has just told (Luke 18:18-30). The rich young ruler is a righteous man. He has kept most of the laws of his people. He is beloved by the people of his town.

And so, one day, Jesus came to the town of the rich young ruler. The ruler had a question for Jesus. "... what must I do to inherit eternal life?" the ruler said to Jesus (Luke 18:18).

Jesus answered the rich ruler. "You know the commandments," Jesus said. "You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother" (Luke 18:20).

If you had been there just then you would have seen a big smile break out all over the rich ruler's face. He was tickled to death. He'd done all this! He had kept all the commandments! "I have kept all these since my youth," he said to Jesus through his broad smile (Luke 18:21). This was a man who had just found out that he would be saved. His deeds made it so.

But Jesus wasn't finished with the rich young man. "Not so fast," Jesus seems to say. "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me" (Luke 18:22).

The smile immediately left the young man's face. He was very rich. There was just no way that he was going to give up all his wealth. Not even for his salvation. Jesus reflected upon his departure: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" (Luke 18:24).

Now there was a crowd observing all this. They were scandalized by Jesus' words and the ruler's departure. They knew this young man. They knew him to be an upright and honest man. They knew him to be a benefactor of the town. "If this man can't be saved," they said to Jesus, "then who can be saved?"

Jesus replied: "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God" (Luke 18:27). This is a wonderful, high-sounding answer to the question of the crowd. But what does it mean? What does it mean for you and for me? If a wonderfully righteous person like the young ruler can be turned away from salvation, what hope is there for us? None of us lives up to the standards of the rich young ruler. None of us has kept all the commandments. Is salvation a possibility for us at all?

"Who then can be saved?" Luke's answer: Zacchaeus can be saved! Sinners can be saved! "What is impossible for mortals is possible for God." "For the Son of Man came to seek out and save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

33. I AM THE CHURCH

Illustration

John H. Krahn

I am the Church. Most of you associate me with steeples and stained glass windows. And in one sense, you are right. One of the ways I can be described is by my individual architectural style. I am usually constructed with the finest materials, and my cost per square foot is often quite high. I think this is appropriate because I make a visible statement to the world about the feelings of my members towards the Lord. I am a visible witness to the community. When I am allowed to look run-down, my appearance reflects how you feel about me.

Although many folks see me mainly as a building, this is only a small part of my personality. For the most part, I am people, people like you who are reading this message. I am the people of God who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are baptized. Each believer is part of me ... a little me, a little church. In the same way that the building part of me gives an image to the community, the people part of who I am makes a statement to the community also. We reflect God’s importance and love to the community we serve.

Because of the inability to understand clearly what God teaches in the Bible about what we should believe and how we should be in ministry, there are many denominations that make me up. This hurts me. It hurts me because God wants us all to be one. It hurts me because the non-believing world looks at our division and finds fault with us. This makes it harder for them to become one of us. It hurts me because we are also weakened through division. I am the Church, and for my sake, I hope each of you will pray that there will be greater understanding, acceptance, working together, and unity among all Christians.

There is another most important thing that I want to talk about. My cornerstone must always be the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to the apostle Peter that his confession of faith in him was the strong foundation upon which the church must be built. When it is built on Jesus, not even the gates of hell can destroy it. Don’t forget your cornerstone. This is another way of my telling you not to forget your central purpose for being the church. I am the Church and my central, most important function is to share with my members and the world that God is in love with all people and desires their salvation. This can only happen when people recognize their sinfulness, repent, and receive Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of their personal lives. When this happens, God looks at them and no longer sees their sin but rather sees his Son, their Savior.

I challenge each of you to seek the help of God to expand in your love for him and for one another. I challenge you to expand in your willingness to listen to one another, to accept one another, to forgive one another. I challenge you to expand your involvement with other churches and the world-wide ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, I challenge you to expand your efforts in sharing with each other and with your community the message of God’s love through Jesus Christ. This message is the Rock upon which I am built.

34. God Is Good, Life Isn’t Fair

Illustration

Johnny Dean

I seriously doubt that the story of the early and late workers in the vineyard would make very many folks' Top Ten Parables list. It's the parable most everyone loves to hate. And for good reason! The parable runs against the grain of one of our most deeply cherished values, the value of hard work and just reward: The more you work and the more productive you are, the more you ought to get paid. Let's face it: this parable is just not fair! But, then again, as someone once said, "God is good, but life isn't fair!"

I remember well the first sermon I preached on this passage from Matthew's Gospel. An elder of the church I was serving at that time came up to me after the service and said, "Preacher, of all the texts you had to pick from, you had to choose my least favorite parable in all of the New Testament! Jesus should have known better than to tell something as unfair as this! The next time you decide to preach about that one, please let me know in advance so I can get an early tee time that Sunday!"

35. Illustrations for Lent Easter Old Testament Texts

Illustration

Jon L. Joyce

1. God destroys as well as preserves [Isaiah 42:14]

Luther says that God is to be both loved and feared. The same God of compassion who is eager to show love to those who turn to him is equally determined to root out and destroy evil. Isaiah is warning us not to be lulled to sleep by thinking only of the kindness of God. He who shows patience toward our waywardness will eventually cease to overlook unatoned sin and will destroy. He holds all the power of the universe in his hands to work his ends. Our eternal destiny is for him to determine. Are we tempting God by clinging to things he opposes? Remember God has said, "I will destroy." The time to repent and make peace with him is now.

2. Christ will restore sight [Isaiah 42:16]

A blind beggar walking down a street on a day in spring carried a sign saying, "It is April, and I am blind." How pitiful that he was blind at any time. But on a spring day it was even worse; he could not see the newly formed leaves on the trees, or the beautiful flowers blooming on every hand. He could not see the earth bathed in sunshine or the glow of a sunset in the western sky. But another blindness is even worse. It can come to those who have retained their physical sight. There is a saying, "None is so blind as he that will not see." When Isaiah talks of the blind he includes everyone who does not have spiritual insight. Children laugh at the phrase, "I see, said the blind man." Yet it is true that the physically blind can see many things which the person with sight overlooks. So God promises to help us in our spiritual blindness. He will show us the path of righteousness, reveal opportunities to serve our fellow man, to improve ourselves, and to see the Christ who is hidden from those who do not believe in Him.

3. Idolators shall be ashamed [Isaiah 42:17]

Idol worship seems like something out of the long past. It brings to mind visions of ignorant people in an earlier age bowing down before a statue which to them is their god. So this verse does not seem to apply to the one who reads it today. Here is where we deceive ourselves. Idolatry is a very subtle thing. It was said of Sampson that he did not know when the Lord had forsaken him, and thought he could go on in strength as he had before. So idolatry creeps upon anyone who is not alert. It is so easy to cater to oneself; to want fame and fortune so badly that we slowly let these desires come between us and God. Beware lest great shame come upon you because idols of today have subtly replaced God in your objectives and desires.

4. God will be praised for his law (Gospel) [Isaiah 42:21]

Our age is one of much disdain for God’s law. The ten commandments are regarded by many as out of date. They are as foolish in disdaining God’s rules and thinking they have outgrown them as was a certain sailor. The captain had pointed out the north star before turning over the wheel to the young seaman. He told the young man to steer constantly toward that star. The captain then took a nap and upon awakening found that the ship was not on course. When he questioned the young sailor what had gone wrong, he was told, "I have sailed past that star, show me another one." No one can sail past the ten commandments. They remain as up-to-date as the day’s news announcements. God has chosen to give honor to his eternal rules, whether they be revealed in the Ten Commandments or in Jesus Christ. The wise will realize the worth of God’s laws and strive to obey and honor them.

36. Training with Water

Illustration

Source Unknown

Arabian horses go through rigorous training in the deserts of the Middle East. The trainers require absolute obedience from the horses, and test them to see if they are completely trained. The final test is almost beyond the endurance of any living thing. The trainers force the horses to do without water for many days. Then he turns them loose and of course they start running toward the water, but just as they get to the edge, ready to plunge in and drink, the trainer blows his whistle. The horses who have been completely trained and who have learned perfect obedience, stop. They turn around and come pacing back to the trainer. They stand there quivering, wanting water, but they wait in perfect obedience. When the trainer is sure that he has their obedience he gives them a signal to go back to drink.

Now this may be severe but when you are on the trackless desert of Arabia and your life is entrusted to a horse, you had better have a trained obedient horse. We must accept God's training and obey Him.

37. Break A Leg

Illustration

Michael P. Green

Please see the note below this illustration.

A woman visiting in Switzerland came to a sheepfold on one of her daily walks. Venturing in, she saw the shepherd seated on the ground with his flock around him. Nearby, on a pile of straw lay a single sheep, which seemed to be suffering. Looking closely, the woman saw that its leg was broken.

Her sympathy went out to the suffering sheep, and she looked up inquiringly to the shepherd as she asked how it happened. “I broke it myself,” said the shepherd sadly and then explained. “Of all the sheep in my flock, this was the most wayward. It would not obey my voice and would not follow when I was leading the flock. On more than one occasion, it wandered to the edge of a perilous cliff. And not only was it disobedient itself, but it was leading other sheep astray.

“Based on my experience with this kind of sheep, I knew I had no choice, so I broke its leg. The next day I took food and it tried to bite me. After letting it lie alone for a couple of days, I went back and it not only eagerly took the food, but licked my hand and showed every sign of submission and affection.

“And now, let me say this. When this sheep is well, it will be the model sheep of my entire flock. No sheep will hear my voice so quickly nor follow so closely. Instead of leading the others away, it will be an example of devotion and obedience. In short, a complete change will come into the life of this wayward sheep. It will have learned obedience through its sufferings.”

Many times it is the same in human experience. Through our suffering, God may be seeking to teach us obedience and reliance on his care.

Note: There is no evidence that this was a practice among shepherds. See the following page for more information.

38. As If You Had Not Sinned

Illustration

Albert Barnes

What is justification? It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Savior. It is not mere pardon. Pardon is a free forgiveness of past offenses. It has reference to those sins as forgiven and blotted out. Justification has respect to the law, and to God's future dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him hereafter as righteous as if he had not sinned. The basis for this is the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ, merit that we can plead as if it were our own. He has taken our place and died in our stead; He has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on our own heads if He had not interposed.

39. The Joy Of God

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

Dr. Yoshiro Ishida is an international church leader in the Lutheran Church. He began his service to the church as a pastor in his church in Japan. He was spotted as a very promising young man and the church arranged for him to attend graduate school in the United States. He returned to Japan as a professor in the theological seminary.

After these years of service in Japan, Dr. Ishida was called to serve at the headquarters of the Lutheran World Federation in Geneva, Switzerland. He gave dedicated service to the global church in Geneva in a variety of positions. He was next called to head up a new "Institute of Global Mission" in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Ishida and his American-born wife, therefore, moved to Chicago. Just a year ago he was called again, now almost at retirement age, to come back to Japan and help start a new four-year women's college.

Dr. Ishida's service to the global Christian community is a wonderful testimony to his dedication. But where did he get that faith? Dr. Ishida was born into a Buddhist family. He was raised in a land that is only about one percent Christian. How did the Christian message find him and bring him to faith?

A couple of years ago Dr. Ishida answered this question as he addressed a mission gathering here in the United States. Dr. Ishida told the group that he was a teenager during the Second World War. He came from a Buddhist family and he was quite devout. He spent much time at the Buddhist Temple in his city. The temple was a quiet place for meditation and devotion. It was a safe place. He liked being around the temple, he said. There was a security there for him as he gave expression for his need to be right with God.

Then one day at the temple, just by chance, he got his hands on a copy of the Christian Bible. There were many Bibles available in Japan even if there were very few Christians. So young Mr. Ishida began to read the Bible. It was a whole new world for him. At first he couldn't understand much of it at all. It didn't make that much sense. He couldn't figure out the point.

One day that all changed. The "scales fell from his eyes" we might say as he was reading Luke 15. It was the joy of God that really spoke to him. "My heart was caught with the fact that the parables portrayed the joy of God," he said to the hushed assembly. He recited a portion of the parables: "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons who need no repentance. Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." "Note this joy of God," he continued. "I couldn't believe it. I always thought we need to get right with God. That's what I was trying to do at the Buddhist Temple. But the Bible talked about a God who needs to save us. And when God saves us, when God finds us, God is filled with joy!"

'What a strange God this is!' I thought to myself. God is overjoyed with finding just one person. I found this new. I had never heard of such a thing. It meant that God was concerned with me. With me! Just one person! And God is filled with joy at finding me. To this very day, that is to me what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about."

40. Change in One’s Life

Illustration

The famous American architect Frank Lloyd Wright created an idea called organic architecture. He believed that buildings should be blended into the surrounding natural environment. If you stare at the buildings that he designed on the campus of Florida Southern College in Lakeland, it is very difficult to tell where the edifice stops and the environment begins. It merges and blends. Perhaps we should start talking of organic Christianity. If you look at the life of Jesus you see no sharp line of demarcation between his religious life and his everyday life. They blended and they Meshed together. It should be that way for you and for me.

If we have responded to John's demands that we repent, if Christ really has been born anew in our hearts then it will bring out the best, not the worst, in us. It brought out the best in Joseph. When Mary told her husband that she was pregnant, he had every legal right to divorce her for in those days an engagement was the equivalent of a marriage. She could have been turned over to the civil authorities as an adulteress and the penalty for that was stoning. Not one man in a million could have been expected to believe Mary's version of the conception Joseph believed it. Christmas brought out the good in Joseph.

It is my prayer that this Christmas season will have an effect on the way that you live your life. That it will bring out the best, not the worst, in you. Not one person here this morning has the problems that Joseph had that first Christmas, yet the best was brought out in him. When you and I care we want to give our best to God. To be the best is to be like Jesus. And to be like Jesus is to have him reborn in our lives.

41. Familiarity Breeds Contempt

Illustration

In 1986 Henri Nouwen, a Dutch theologian and writer, toured St. Petersburg, Russia, the former Leningrad. While there he visited the famous Hermitage where he saw, among other things, Rembrandt's painting of the Prodigal Son. The painting was in a hallway and received the natural light of a nearby window. Newman stood for two hours, mesmerized by this remarkable painting. As he stood there the sun changed, and at every change of the light's angle he saw a different aspect of the painting revealed. He would later write: "There were as many paintings in the Prodigal Son as there were changes in the day."

It is difficult for us to see something new in the parable of the Prodigal son. We have heard the story so many times we believe that we have squeezed it dry of meaning. Not only that, but, as the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. When we hear the opening words of the parable once again, "And there was a Father who had two sons," we greet the words with ho-hum. Heard it. Heard it. Heard it.

Yet, I would suggest that just as Henri Nouwen saw a half dozen different facets to Rembrandt's painting of the Prodigal Son, so too are there many different angles to the story itself.

42. Sibling Rivalry

Illustration

King Duncan

Abraham Lincoln was walking down the street in Springfield holding the hands of his two sons, both of whom were crying lustily.

“What’s the matter with the boys, Abe?” asked a neighbor. Lincoln replied, “The matter with them is the matter with the world. One has a nut, and the other one wants it.”

43. The Details Raise Questions

Illustration

Paul Rader

Have you ever seen the Salvador Dali painting where clock is sliding off the table and another one is bent backwards on a tree branch? It is called "the persistence of memory." Now, you know that clocks do not bend and melt and do not assume the positions they do in this painting. But what might it be saying about time? What happens to time? Time flies, time melts away, time disintegrates, things fall apart … You may not like Dali's painting, but you cannot help but think about it.

The details in the parable of the mustard seed are skewed. It's a strange image Jesus is painting. We might not notice, not being Palestinian farmers, but those who heard Jesus tell this parable sure did. Mustard seeds are not the smallest seeds. They are tiny, but they are not the smallest by a great deal. And they do not grow to become the largest of all garden plants. In fact, it isn't a garden plant at all: it's a weed. A weed! And it was against Jewish law to plant weeds in a garden. It was a wild plant, totally undomesticated, beyond control. And there isn't a farmer in all of Palestine that wants birds perched in a bush or shrub or under them when new seeds were in the ground.

Those who heard Jesus tell this parable knew something was up! He knew what mustard was. He knew and they knew. What could his distortion of the mustard, as a seed and as a plant, mean? Was he urging disobedience to the law? Was he poking fun at the empire? Rome was a mighty oak tree. Greece was as powerful as the cedars of Lebanon. The kingdom of God is like a weed?

44. What Is a Parable?

Illustration

Philip W. McLarty

I had the privilege of studying the parables in seminary with Dr. William Farmer, who, at the time, was one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world, and I'll never forget the first lesson Dr. Farmer taught us. He said, "A parable is a simple story, using concrete imagery, to make a single point."

Simple as that: "A parable is a simple story, using concrete imagery, to make a single point." Parables are not intended to be allegories (where one thing represents another). They're not to be interpreted metaphorically. They're not similes, or analogies, or paradigms, or riddles. A parable is a simple story, using concrete imagery, to make a single point - and, in the case of Jesus' parables, a single point about the nature of the Kingdom of God.

45. Pulling Weeds - Sermon Starter

Illustration

King Duncan

Last week we talked about planting seeds. This week we're talking about pulling weeds. The two go together. Every gardener knows that planting seeds is the easy part of having a successful garden. It is much more time consuming to weed that same garden. And it's hard work. As someone has said: "When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it. If it comes out of the ground easily, it is a valuable plant."

There is a corollary to that truth: "To distinguish flowers from weeds, simply pull up everything. What grows back is weeds."

Some of you can relate to one unknown homemaker who wrote: I don't do windows because . . . I love birds and don't want one to run into a clean window and get hurt. I don't wax floors because . . . I am terrified a guest will slip and get hurt then I'll feel terrible (plus they may sue me.)I don't disturb cobwebs because . . . I want every creature to have a home of their own. I don't Spring Clean because . . . I love all the seasons and don't want the others to get jealous. I don't put things away because . . . my husband will never be able to find them again. I don't do gourmet meals when I entertain because . . . I don't want my guests to stress out over what to make when they invite me over for dinner. I don't iron because . . . I choose to believe them when they say "Permanent Press." And finally: I don't pull weeds in the garden because . . . I don't want to get in God's way, He is an excellent designer!

I doubt than anyone likes pulling weeds, including God. In today's lesson Jesus tells a parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

"The owner's servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

"‘An enemy did this,' he replied.

"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

"‘No,' he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"

Then Jesus left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."

Jesus answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

On its surface, there is not much to be said about this parable except make sure you're not a weed…

1. Pulling Weeds Is an Important Part of a Successful Life.
2. God Is Our Savior.
3. God Wants to Save Us from Sin.

46. Commentary

Illustration

Archibald M. Hunter

The Parable of the Talents makes no attempt to examine the causes of the slave's laziness, but one factor is evident from the dialogue: the slave has no love for his master. He is really interested only in himself, and consequently security, not service, is his goal. There is not the slightest trace of gratitude that his master trusted him with so great a sum. Respect for his master is limited to a grudging acknowledgement of power.

If we are correct in taking the phrase "to each according to his ability" as indicating that for Matthew the parable challenges Christians to make full use of the gifts that God has entrusted to them, the portrayal of the third servant reminds us that love for our master must be demonstrated in faithful and untiring service to other people.

It is routine for Christians to excuse themselves by protesting that their gifts are too modest to be significant. This parable insists that the gifts are precious and are to be exploited to the full.

47. Don't Put a Limit on Yourself

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Years ago a Bishop Wright was speaking in the Midwest. He said that everything that could be invented had already been invented and claimed that we were then living in the epitome of civilization.

Later, the president of the college where he was speaking suggested that perhaps some new things would be discovered.

“Name me one thing,” the bishop replied.

The president said, “I believe some day people will build a machine that will fly in the air.” Bishop Wright was flabbergasted. “That’s the most stupid idea I ever heard. If God wanted men to fly he would have given him wings.”

Well, it happened that the good Bishop Wright had two sons. One was named Orville and the other was named Wilbur.

Don’t ever put a limit on yourself, on others, and above all on God. There is a verse of scripture which says, “God is able and willing to do far more abundantly than we can ask or think.”

Do you know how God does those remarkable things? Most of the time, through persons like you and me.

48. William Barclay on the Rich Fool

Illustration

William Barclay

The problem with the Rich Fool is he never saw beyond himself. There is no parable like this one which is so full of the words, I, me, my and mine. From verse 16 to 19, four verses, so much is revealed in the frequency of the personal pronouns. Listen to how many times they are used: I, I, my, I, I, I, my, my, I, my. A schoolboy was once asked what parts of speech my and mine are. He answered, "Aggressive pronouns." The rich fool was aggressively self-centered. It was said of a self-centered young lady, "Edith lived in a little world, bounded on the north, south, east and west by Edith." The famous criticism was made of a self-centered person, "There is too much ego in his cosmos." When this man had a superfluity of goods the one thing that never entered his head was to give any away. His whole attitude was the very reverse of Christianity. Instead of denying himself he aggressively affirmed himself: instead of finding his happiness in giving he tried to conserve it by keeping.

John Wesley's rule of life was to save all he could and give all he could. When he was at Oxford he had an income of 30 pounds a year. He lived on 28 pounds and gave 2 pounds away. When his income increased to 60 pounds, 90 pounds, 120 pounds a year, he still lived on 28 pounds and gave the balance away. The Accountant-General for Household Plate demanded a return from him. His reply was, "I have two silver tea spoons at London and two at Bristol. This is all the plate which I have at present; and I shall not buy any more, while so many around me want bread."

The Romans had a proverb which said that money was like sea-water; the more a man drank the thirstier he became. And so long as a man's attitude is that of the rich fool his desire will always be to get more-and that is the reverse of the Christian way.

Note: It would be effective to read the parable once and then re-read it again punctuating the personal pronouns. Don't tell your congregation directly what you are doing, just tell them you want to re-read the parable with a little different twist. Ask them, "Can you hear what's going on now?"

49. Fairness

Illustration

George E. Thompson

We are shocked by the message of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, for it goes against the grain of our natural expectation. It mocks our logical sense of justice. Perhaps we are more drawn to the message of the Norwegian writer Jens Peter Jacobsen in his novel Niels Lyhne, which tell about a man who rejected God. As he grew older, he secretly desired the peace of faith, but he refused to come to God weak-kneed toward life's ending. Fate had been harsh to him, with death visiting those whom he loved most. Tenaciously, he held on to disbelief and a philosophy of nihilism even though he wanted the peace of God. In the last hour of his life, he refused to see the pastor, though secretly he wanted absolution and faith's consolation. His physician, who loved him, was moved by his valor and whispered, "If I were God, I would far sooner save the man who does not repent at the last minute."

Deep inside, our sense of even-scaled justice admires the hardened skeptic. But Jesus' parable communicates the opposite message. It shatters all our preconceived assumptions about the justice of God. Here is a story with a coded message that brings us to the core of what Jesus of Nazareth is all about! The key to interpreting the parable is in remembering that the vineyard is always the symbol of God's kingdom, his new community, his new reality. In point of fact, the vineyard is the Church. Moreover, God owns the vineyard lock, stock, and barrel. We are privileged to labor in his vineyard (his Church) and receive the security that there will be adequate compensation for all. But the real pay is not the wage offered at the end of the day. The work itself is our gift, our immeasurable privilege! It carries its own reward. For the work in God's vineyard brings us near to our fatherly Lord and his care for us.

50. Buying Back the Boat

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

A father and son worked for months to build a toy sailboat. Every night when he came home from work the man and his boy would disappear into the garage for hours. It was a labor of love—love for each other and for the thing they were creating. The wooden hull was painted bright red and it was trimmed with gleaming white sails. When it was finished, they traveled to a nearby lake for the boat's trial run. Before launching it the father tied a string to its stern to keep it from sailing too far. The boat performed beautifully, but before long a motorboat crossing the lake cut the string, and the sailboat drifted out of sight on the large lake. Attempts to find it were fruitless, and both father and son wept over its loss. A few weeks later as the boy was walking home from school he passed his favorite toy store and was amazed to see a toy sailboat in the window—his sailboat! He ran inside to claim the boat, telling the proprietor about his experience on the lake. The score owner explained that he had found the boat while on a fishing trip. "You may be its maker," he said, "but as a finder I am its legal owner. You may have it back—for fifty dollars." The boy was stunned at how much it would cost him to regain his boat, but since it was so precious to him he quickly set about earning the money to buy it back. Months later he joyfully walked in to the toy store and handed the owner fifty dollars in exchange for his sailboat. It was the happiest day of his life. As he left the store he held the boat up to the sunlight. Its colors gleamed as though newly painted. "I made you, but I lost you," he said. "Now I've bought you back. That makes you twice mine, and twice mine is mine forever."

Showing 1 to 50 of 285 results